I was thinking about a Bavarian and Saxon attempt to quickly seize big chunks of Austria and Bohemia, while they speculate on anti-Habsburg sentiments in Bohemia and Hungary to burst into open rebellions. The Saxons could drag the Poles into the conflict as well, maybe with the prospect of regaining suzeiranity over (East) Prussia. I admit this sounds like an extremely risky move, but they could also count on French support (,which France is either willing to provide or not). It's not like there weren't similar gambles during the course of history. I admit, it's rather crazy, but to be honest, I just can't stand Lausitz being part of Saxony and not of Bohemia. ^^'

Bavaria is not going to take one step if they aren't confident in full French support. The kingdom was militarily uninspiring and very nearly broke; as the actual WoAS demonstrated, the Bavarians were incapable of doing anything at all without French money and French forces. The French, for their part, were only inspired to fight by the military collapse and diplomatic isolation of Austria; Austria united to Prussia is neither militarily weak nor diplomatically isolated. ITTL, there is quite simply no opportunity for either France or Bavaria. Maria Theresa has a strong continental ally and it's now France, not Austria, which is relatively isolated; they can only really count on Spain, which as mentioned is already in another war at the time.

As for Saxony, they were IOTL the most wishy-washy participant of the war. Augustus followed the path of least resistance at all times: He allowed himself to be pushed into war when France, Prussia, and Bavaria seemed to be winning big, and then quit that war and joined the other team as soon as Prussia withdrew and the French started falling back in disarray. History does indeed record some bold gambles, but unless he gets a brain transplant Augustus is not the man to be making them. In fact if Bavaria and France do decide to attack Austria - which I would regard as incredibly unlikely - Saxony is far more likely to fight against them than for them, bowing to pressure from Berlin, Vienna, and London.

There really wasn't significant “anti-Habsburg sentiment” in Bohemia and Hungary at this time. The Hungarians were surprisingly supportive of MT, and the Bohemian reaction to the brief Franco-Bavarian takeover was tepid. The population was generally more open to the new regime than the Silesians, who resisted their Prussian conquerors, but the Bohemians were hardly taking up arms en masse to escape the Habsburg yoke. Moreover, Bohemian "collaboration" (such as it was) really came only after the French and Bavarians had swept through the entire province, conquered Prague, and made Charles Albert emperor. But even if there were some visible signs of discontent, it's impossible for me to imagine Charles Albert or the French starting a war on the mere expectation of popular dissent, which as anyone knows is no substitute for a real army.

IMO, any European war which breaks out in the early 1740s ITTL is probably going to be an outgrowth of the existing war between Spain and Britain. Prior to the death of Charles VI, both the French and British expected that their countries were going to go to war any day now. If France enters the war, it's not impossible that Fred and MT might eventually decide to jump in and side with Britain. Perhaps MT would see it as an opportunity to get Naples and Sicily back. Germany, however, seems unlikely to be a major theater in such a conflict.

I think the biggest unanswered question in all of this (aside from "how does this marriage even happen in the first place") is "what is Frederick like as a hegemon instead of an upstart?" His whole reign was characterized by his bold and frankly risky attempts to elevate his small but efficient state into a European power which received the respect it was due. ITTL, however, he's no longer the underdog - he's the man at the summit of power and authority in Europe. What becomes of his ambitions in such a position? Where does he direct his energies?
 
Last edited:
Bavaria is not going to take one step if they aren't confident in full French support. The kingdom was militarily uninspiring and very nearly broke; as the actual WoAS demonstrated, the Bavarians were incapable of doing anything at all without French money and French forces. The French, for their part, were only inspired to fight by the military collapse and diplomatic isolation of Austria; Austria united to Prussia is neither militarily weak nor diplomatically isolated. ITTL, there is quite simply no opportunity for either France or Bavaria. Maria Theresa has a strong continental ally and it's now France, not Austria, which is relatively isolated; they can only really count on Spain, which as mentioned is already in another war at the time.
I can't argue, with this logic, you are right. There's no WoAS then.
There really wasn't significant “anti-Habsburg sentiment” in Bohemia and Hungary at this time. The Hungarians were surprisingly supportive of MT, and the Bohemian reaction to the brief Franco-Bavarian takeover was tepid. The population was generally more open to the new regime than the Silesians, who resisted their Prussian conquerors, but the Bohemians were hardly taking up arms en masse to escape the Habsburg yoke. Moreover, Bohemian "collaboration" (such as it was) really came only after the French and Bavarians had swept through the entire province, conquered Prague, and made Charles Albert emperor. But even if there were some visible signs of discontent, it's impossible for me to imagine Charles Albert or the French starting a war on the mere expectation of popular dissent, which as anyone knows is no substitute for a real army.
I'm fully awar if that. I wrote the anti-Habsburg sentiment as a mere speculation of the attackers, since if I know it correctly, it was a huge surprise to many, how loyal the Hungarians were towards MT.
IMO, any European war which breaks out in the early 1740s ITTL is probably going to be an outgrowth of the existing war between Spain and Britain. Prior to the death of Charles VI, both the French and British expected that their countries were going to go to war any day now. If France enters the war, it's not impossible that Fred and MT might eventually decide to jump in and side with Britain. Perhaps MT would see it as an opportunity to get Naples and Sicily back. Germany, however, seems unlikely to be a major theater in such a conflict.
It's certainly a possibility, but what about Tuscany though? Without the Tuscany-Lorraine swap, what will happen there? That's another issue, I'm curious about.
I think the biggest unanswered question in all of this (aside from "how does this marriage even happen in the first place") is "what is Frederick like as a hegemon instead of an upstart?" His whole reign was characterized by his bold and frankly risky attempts to elevate his small but efficient state into a European power which received the respect it was due. ITTL, however, he's no longer the underdog - he's the man at the summit of power and authority in Europe. What becomes of his ambitions in such a position? Where does he direct his energies?
I believe, that creating better connection between Brandenburg and the other Habsburg-Lorraine realms would be an important goal. That's why would it be nice to acquire Lausitz. The other idea, which came to my mind is relocating the Wettins to Austrian Netherlands and absorving Saxony entirely. If course, it's an unlikely solution, and could only work, if the Wettins already lost the PLC's crown.
 
I'm fully awar if that. I wrote the anti-Habsburg sentiment as a mere speculation of the attackers, since if I know it correctly, it was a huge surprise to many, how loyal the Hungarians were towards MT.

That's fair. As far as I'm aware, the swell of Hungarian support was indeed surprising (even if it didn't amount to as much as MT and her advisors had hoped). And it's worth noting that stirring up a domestic uprising was attempted at least once during the war, by the French in their support for the '45 Jacobite rebellion in Britain. In that case, however, they had a claimant ready to go and a substantial, organized domestic faction that was willing to fight for that claimant. Hungary had nothing even close to that, and it's hard for me to imagine even such a fantasist as Charles Albert believing that there was any possibility of an uprising there.

It's certainly a possibility, but what about Tuscany though? Without the Tuscany-Lorraine swap, what will happen there? That's another issue, I'm curious about.

A good question, one I'm not sure I have a good answer for. The Lorraine-Tuscany swap was a clever solution which becomes impossible if the Duke of Lorraine is no longer a Habsburg by marriage.

That also brings up the very important point that a Fred-MT marriage will have effects years before either Fred or MT are actually on the throne, the extent of which will depend on what exactly changes such that both parties decide that the (rather improbable, IMO) marriage is a good idea. It seems likely, for instance, that Charles VI would not have stalled and denied Frederick William's claims to Jülich and Berg if their children were wed (or betrothed). I don't know much about the extent of Prussia's contribution to the War of Polish Succession, but if such an alliance already existed one wonders whether Frederick William would not have fought harder and contributed more to the cause.

I believe, that creating better connection between Brandenburg and the other Habsburg-Lorraine realms would be an important goal. That's why would it be nice to acquire Lausitz. The other idea, which came to my mind is relocating the Wettins to Austrian Netherlands and absorving Saxony entirely. If course, it's an unlikely solution, and could only work, if the Wettins already lost the PLC's crown.

The problem I see is that, as a general rule, the store owner doesn't rob the store. Frederick may be ambitious and rapacious, but as the leader of the HRE he's disincentivized from partitioning and dissolving what are in effect his vassal states. While the powers of the emperor were not great, the loyalty of the empire's feudatories is worth something, and he substantially undermines it by treating Saxony (or any other state of the HRE that's not in active rebellion) as a goose to be carved up. It would be less problematic for him to direct an urge for conquest elsewhere, outside the empire's borders, where he won't alienate his own nominal clients. Then again, perhaps Frederick is enough of a rogue to trample on the old traditions and structures of the HRE - I can't really put it past him. There might, however, be consequences.
 
AFAIK, Ferdinand was officially deposed by the same Estates that earlier elected him as a heir to the throne.



Second example is "better" in the terms of illustrating your point :) but as far as Frederic is involved, reluctance to recognize him (after Ferdinand was deposed the Czechs had been playing games with more than one candidate and the rejected ones had been understandably unhappy and, anyway, deposing your own monarch was not appreciated by other monarchs) is neither here nor there: for a short while he was a legitimate king (and elector) of Bohemia and Elector Palatinate.
That do not matter at all: Frederick was never involved in the HRE as King of Bohemia because in the imperial election of 1619 the vote of Bohemia was recognized by the electoral college as belonging to Ferdinand not to Frederick who was then able to cast only his vote from the Palatinate. If the Holy Roman Empire never accepted him as legitimate King of Bohemia (with both Ferdinand and Frederick claiming the crown and the electoral vote, the other five electors confirmed Ferdinand as King and elector of Bohemia), Frederick never held two electorates at the same time so the only valid situation of someone who had two electoral votes was resolved when the vote of Palatinate was absorbed in the Bavarian one.
A way for mantaining the balancing of the electoral college and keeping only a vote for elector was transferring the electoral vote from a land to another: when Frederick V of Palatinate was stripped of the electoral title that was transferred to Bavaria, then another electoral title was created for Palatinate, disrupting a little the balance in the electoral college for political reasons so when the lands of both titles were reunited under the same ruler the second electoral titles was simply absorbed in the first (restoring the electoral college of seven members)
 
Last edited:
The population was generally more open to the new regime than the Silesians, who resisted their Prussian conquerors

They did? In an old German encyclopedia from ~1900 I read that the Protestants felt liberated and even the Catholics were happy to get rid of the Habsburg mismanagement.
 
Fehérvári said:
There's no legitimate claim to Saxony though, as much as I know. But what about an exchange? Austrian Netherlands for Saxony. Is this plausible?
At the end of the 7YW Fritz wanted to get Saxony. Of course, it had to be a compensation for the East Prussia occupied by Russia (but then returned to him by Peter III) but, IMO, it shows his general attitude toward the issue of legitimacy. BTW, what was his "legitimate" claim to Silesia?

As for compensation, why should be any at Fritz-MT expense? Elector will still have his Poland.

Edit: The Habsburg-Hohenzollerns will be pretty busy in the West imo. Warring against the Ottomans is unlikely for the time being.

If there is an equivalent of the War for Austrian Succession, than yes. However, the enemy is much weaker than in OTL: only France counts for something. Of course, France still has Maurice de Saxe and the match between him and young Fritz will be interesting. I wonder if in this schema Britain sides with the Austro-Prussian Union or stay neutral: on one hand France is still the main enemy but OTOH, the overly powerful "union" may endanger the British interests in Germany (Hanover).

As for the Ottomans, this would come sooner or later: the Hapsburgs simply could not keep their hands out of the Balkans.
 
That do not matter at all: Frederick was never involved in the HRE as King of Bohemia because in the imperial election of 1619 the vote of Bohemia was recognized by the electoral college as belonging to Ferdinand not to Frederick who was then able to cast only his vote from the Palatinate.

Something can be said about your example: Ferdinand was elected an emperor on Aug. 28, 1619 while Frederic became King of Bohemia only on 4 November 1619. In other words, by the time of imperial election Ferdinand was still the only claimant to the electoral title. :)

Was there an explicit rule against holding more than one electorate?
 
Something can be said about your example: Ferdinand was elected an emperor on Aug. 28, 1619 while Frederic became King of Bohemia only on 4 November 1619. In other words, by the time of imperial election Ferdinand was still the only claimant to the electoral title. :)

Was there an explicit rule against holding more than one electorate?
Yes, that rule existed as you can see by everything related to that.
In any case Frederick was crowned as King of Bohemia on 4 November 1619, but elected on 26 August and while wasofficially informed of that election on the 29 August, he already knew the outcome of the election before that happened and tried to stop the Imperial election and the recognition of Ferdinand as King and elector of Bohemia
 
Yes, that rule existed as you can see by everything related to that.
In any case Frederick was crowned as King of Bohemia on 4 November 1619, but elected on 26 August and while wasofficially informed of that election on the 29 August, he already knew the outcome of the election before that happened and tried to stop the Imperial election and the recognition of Ferdinand as King and elector of Bohemia

Actually, I can't see it existing based strictly upon the circumstantial evidence. Can you please provide some kind of a reference or a link to it?

The fact that Frederic was elected on August is irrelevant: the only important date is one of the coronation (just as with the POTUS:)). International recognition is a separate subject not directly related to the issue.
 
They did? In an old German encyclopedia from ~1900 I read that the Protestants felt liberated and even the Catholics were happy to get rid of the Habsburg mismanagement.

Perhaps some did feel that way. My comment was based on a passage from Browning's 1993 book on the WotAS, which I dug up:

Faithful to the principle that fear is the great tranquilizer, the Prussian authorities acted to make Silesians respectful of Prussian power. Silesians were conscripted into the Prussian army, new financial exactions were imposed, strategic towns were laid waste. The yoke became so burdensome that even many Protestants, initially delighted at the arrival of their co-religionist from Berlin, came to resist Frederick; and Catholics, for whom the situation had never been ambiguous, often fled to Poland or, staying put, cooperated with the small bands of Austrian troops that Browne sent out to harry the enemy. The hostility of the south was particularly intense, leading Schwerin to advise Frederick in March [of 1741] that "all the people between the Nysa and the Oder are sworn enemies of your majesty." Frederick probably needed no convincing. Late in February he himself had almost been seized or killed at the outpost of Baumgarten by an Austrian detachment that had relied on the sympathy and silence of the peasants to allow it to approach undetected. There was even a story circulating that various Silesians had taken an oath to assassinate him. He ruled a restive province.
 
What happens to this whole house of cards if Fritz CAN'T perform his duty, and Maria Anna still dies childless as OTL.

There is a mention in some bios that Fritz' lack of children was due to a STD contracted as a teenager (during he and his father's visit to Dresden, or after his release from Wusterhausen). He might not have liked his wife, and perceived her as an Austrian plant, but he was pretty conscientious of all his other royal duties, which makes it seem odd that he had no kids (unless one believes Voltaire that Fritz was gay).

Mitford's bio of Fritz makes an interesting reference (and considering Fritz's highly strung/sensitive nature half makes me consider a psychological block):

After this the rules which made Frederick's life do dull were relaxed. He was allowed to visit farms and estates to see how they were run, to receive guests, and even to dine out, though he was forbidden to see women. He went to dine with a Colonel de Wreech at a beautiful house called Tamsel about six miles from Küstrin. The Colonel's wife, all lilies and roses, was ten years younger than her husband....Frederick fell in love with her, wrote her some bad poetry and touching letters. She became pregnant; tongues wagged. Grumbkow asked Junior [Fritz] straight out if he was the father. Junior said "Untrue". Frederick William heard the rumour and seems not to have been displeased. The baby did not live very long. When Frederick left Küstrin he sent his portrait to Mme de Wreech hoping that she would sometimes look at it and say, "He wasn't a bad fellow..."

Now, I'm just playing armchair shrink here (and in an era were child mortality was higher than today, it might not even be relevant), but if Mme de Wreech was his first love (this isn't counting the Dresden lady who made a man out of him to use @Kellan Sullivan's thread title), and he gets her pregnant (dad's a hardnosed Calvinist that covered young Fritzl's eyes when August the Strong unveiled a naked woman on a bed during their Dresden visit of course he's gonna say untrue! His dad's just beheaded his best friend and kept him locked up, I'd be shit scared to say "hi dad, you're gonna have a bastard grandchild" as well). Then the child dies, and he goes into a funk. The child wasn't his (officially) so he can't say anything about it, so his pain turns inward.

PS: To all actual mental health practitioners (psychologists, counsellors, psychiatrists etc) who might be reading this, I'm sorry if it seems like a crazy suggestion (it probably is). Its just my thoughts on the matter.
 
Thanks! OK first off, we need to look at the legal situation within the Holy Roman Empire and specifically the Electorates. All of the secular Electorates were legally required to practice primogeniture, to ensure that the Electoral vote could never be divided among several sons/brothers/lines. This also meant that it was next to impossible to change the succession of an Electorate. Both Friedrich Wilhelm I (Fritz's father) and George II of Great Britain tried to disinherit their irreverent, unloved eldest sons in favor of their favored children, and both were told by their advisors that it would be legally impossible to do so; they would need the assent of the Emperor and (I think) the Diet as they answered to Imperial law. So this creates a major issue as legally speaking, Fritz and MT's eldest son WILL inherit both their realms. While I suppose TTL "Josef" could renounce his paternal inheritance in favor of a younger brother, even that is of dubious legality (ie no precedence). So barring some kind of major constitutional shift, Austria and Prussia WILL be in a permanent personal union.

Second, multiple Electorates. This is also messy. Legally speaking, there's no actual law that I'm aware of that banned someone from holding two Electoral votes at once. Now according to custom it should be actively avoided (ex: when Emperor Charles IV died in 1378, his son Wenceslas IV inherited the Bohemian Crown. Wenceslas had previously been Margrave of Brandenburg and on his death was forced to pass it to his brother Sigismund. It is unclear to me whether or not Wenceslas ever held legal rule over Brandenburg or if his father gave him the title, as its mentioned that Charles IV left Brandenburg to Sigismund, YET Wenceslas did exercise that Electoral vote in his own election in 1376. We also have the example of Count Palatine Francis Louis of Neuburg, who was Archbishop-Elector of Trier until 1729, when he was elected Archbishop-Elector of Mainz and had to renounce his initial archdiocese. However, that was due to the Pope prohibiting a merging of the two Archbishoprics, so not sure if that had any issue in Imperial Law or not) but there was no legal precedent. So we could see the Electoral College (which decided who actually exercised the vote in an interregnum; they decided on the Bohemian vote twice) decide that two seats can be held by one person (actually, isn't that basically what happened in 1742? Charles Albert wasn't allowed to exercise the Bohemian vote due to the succession of that Kingdom remained unsettled, but there was never a ruling that suggested he would have to pick either Bavaria or Bohemia), require one be subsumed into the other, or suggest the creation of a new Electorate. Or more likely, one would be suspended, like the Bohemian vote was when the Electoral college had eight members.

Third, @Carp , not sure I agree with your assessment that Fritz+MT=no WoAS. First, your overestimating the perceived ability of the Prussians underestimating the potential of both Bavaria and Saxony. The Prussian army hasn't proved themselves yet, so no real reason for France to be concerned over the position of MT's husband. Second, why wouldn't France still get involved? Their still about to go to war with Britain and would love the chance to partition London's major continental ally. And in this scenario, I think it's likely that France would have already began to negotiate with both Bavaria and Saxony on a possible partition of the Habsburg Empire. Prussia isn't here to jump into Silesia, but the Saxons are. So we'd likely see the Saxons invade to link their territories to Poland and Bavaria invade Bohemia/Austria. And if Fritz loses an initial battle, then I can easily see France jump in to help partition the Empire. Even if your right and Bavaria stays out of the initial fry, then Saxony is likely to pick up the slack.

OK that's all I got right now, but I'll probably post more later.
 
Third, @Carp , not sure I agree with your assessment that Fritz+MT=no WoAS. First, your overestimating the perceived ability of the Prussians underestimating the potential of both Bavaria and Saxony. The Prussian army hasn't proved themselves yet, so no real reason for France to be concerned over the position of MT's husband. Second, why wouldn't France still get involved? Their still about to go to war with Britain and would love the chance to partition London's major continental ally. And in this scenario, I think it's likely that France would have already began to negotiate with both Bavaria and Saxony on a possible partition of the Habsburg Empire. Prussia isn't here to jump into Silesia, but the Saxons are. So we'd likely see the Saxons invade to link their territories to Poland and Bavaria invade Bohemia/Austria. And if Fritz loses an initial battle, then I can easily see France jump in to help partition the Empire. Even if your right and Bavaria stays out of the initial fry, then Saxony is likely to pick up the slack.

I don't think France's participation is a given. Fleury supported the Bavarian election scheme but was not particularly enthusiastic about a war with Austria, and my point earlier in the thread was that this election scheme is difficult to realize with Brandenburg's vote going to Team Habsburg-Hohenzollern. That France eventually did go to war was in large part because Prussia had already started a war, and Belle-Isle - sent to Germany to drum up electoral votes for Charles Albert - argued forcefully that a) taking the imperial crown from Austria was pointless unless they were also diminished territorially (particularly by the loss of Bohemia) and b) that the present Silesian War offered France a golden opportunity to accomplish this grand humbling of Austria by force of arms. In this scenario Belle-Isle may not even be sent to Germany in the first place, and even if he is, his job is going to be a lot harder without Brandenburg's vote to count on.

As for Saxony, Augustus was a timorous opportunist who frankly doesn't have the stones to go to war against an Austro-Prussian alliance that nearly surrounds him. Surely he'd know that if he proactively joined the French alliance, the very first thing that would happen would be that Austria and Prussia would smash him into the dirt like a tent peg. He only joined the French alliance IOTL in late 1741 when it seemed very likely that Austria was going to lose the war. What this means is that if France starts a war in this scenario, they will do so with only Bavaria on their side. IOTL the French were able to impose their will because the empire was divided and at war, and the Austrians seemed to be crumbling; in this scenario, the empire is at peace and an armed French intervention will be seen very clearly as a foreign invasion to put a French puppet on the throne. I doubt they would attempt it, not without very different leadership at the top.

I guess the fundamental issue here is that I see the WAS, or at least France's part in it, as essentially opportunistic; the French stumbled into an opening created by Frederick's unexpected breach of the peace and Austria's unexpected inability to stop him. The Habsburg-Hohenzollern marriage means this opportunity does not exist, and thus neither does the war.
 
If Maria Theresa married Frederick, that means Poland gets partitioned like IOTL because of the issues between her and her cousin, Maria Anna and her husband's ambitions.
 
Top