WI: Naples for Bavaria

This one might be a little bit out there as it requires a fairly large butterfly net, but all the same: for the sake of curiosity, let's say that the sake of argument, after having acquired Naples in the Spanish Succession, the Habsburgs are in control of the Kingdom.

Meanwhile, the junior line of the House of Wittelsbach - that is, the Bavarian branch - dies out. There is an heir of some variety but all the same the Habsburgs try to do a similar swap as they did OTL of Bavaria-for-Netherlands. ITTL, however - I have three questions:
1. Would they offer Naples? - It seems a little hard to defend from the Spanish Bourbons and is disconnected from their realm, but is Bavaria worth it? I would presume southern Italy was about as poor in the 18th century as it would be later on
2. Would the Wittelsbachs accept? - A royal crown seems nice and this would put whoever it is outside the scope of the Emperor, allowing them to act independently. Still, it might put them under the scope of the Bourbons intrigues in Italy, and it might not end as well trading off their traditonal patrimony.
3. Would the other great powers accede? - It may be in the Bourbons interests to move Naples out of Austria's influence, even if at the expense of Austria strengthening its position in Germany/the Empire. IOTL, Prussia intervened in the Bavaria-for-Netherlands swap and neither Maria Theresa nor Frederick were really interested in fighting over it, so the issue was dropped. Might the Bourbons make the Prussians back down in this sense? Will something else happen?
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
I believe Max Emanuel of Bavaria proposed something like this as part of the Spanish Succession.
 
I believe Max Emanuel of Bavaria proposed something like this as part of the Spanish Succession.

Wasn't it more the French who figured Austria would be keeping Bavaria so proposed Max for ruler of Sicily? Of course, Karl VI didn't want Bavaria (not sure why) and gave Max the country back. Which left Sicily without a ruler so they gave it to Savoy who later swapped it with Austria. Max would've preferred the Southern Netherlands IIRC.

Either way, the Habsburgs LOST Naples in 1737's Treaty of Vienna but scored Tuscany. So is the author proposing that the Habsburgs SOMEHOW keep Naples in order to trade it? Also, the reason Karl Theodor wanted the Southern Netherlands was because he was born there and because it was close to his native Palatinate. He was a foreigner in Bavaria. He also wanted it so he could name his bastard son as his heir (would Naples/Europe allow this?) to this revived kingdom of Burgundy.
 
Either way, the Habsburgs LOST Naples in 1737's Treaty of Vienna but scored Tuscany. So is the author proposing that the Habsburgs SOMEHOW keep Naples in order to trade it? Also, the reason Karl Theodor wanted the Southern Netherlands was because he was born there and because it was close to his native Palatinate. He was a foreigner in Bavaria. He also wanted it so he could name his bastard son as his heir (would Naples/Europe allow this?) to this revived kingdom of Burgundy.

Hence my comment about the butterfly net and avoiding and specifics - this scenario envisions a similar Bavarian crisis while avoiding the outcome of the Polish Succession (i.e. the loss of the Two Sicilies)
 
I've actually suggested something similar, Austria annexing Bavaria in the Spanish war I mean. The problem is the idea originated from Josef I. The Emperor had already de-facto partitioned the Electorate between himself and his uncle the Elector Palatine, not to mention parceled out some of the minor territories and enjoyed the revenues of the occupied Duchy itself. Whether or not he would have annexed Bavaria officially at the end of the war is still unknown; Josef seemed to vacillate between restoring it, continuing to occupy it a la France and Lorraine or outright annexation. I don't believe he came to a decision before his death, which brought Karl VI to the throne. Karl wanted to have his cake and eat it too by keeping Austria and gaining the Spanish throne, something the rest of Europe refused to allow. Therefore he was determined to keep as much of the Spanish monarchy as possible, meaning Naples (and Sicily and Sardinia) was more important to him than Bavaria. Long-term it was idiotic but short-term southern Italy seemed wealthier and more prestigious, not to mention I don't think Karl was willing to deal with the can of worms that annexing Bavaria would open within the Empire.

Then the issue becomes this; if Josef survives and the Grand alliance still fails to secure Spain for the Archduke, then Naples becomes the fallback crown for Karl, or rather Carlo VI. So it's very difficult to do a musical thrones here.
 
Then the issue becomes this; if Josef survives and the Grand alliance still fails to secure Spain for the Archduke, then Naples becomes the fallback crown for Karl, or rather Carlo VI. So it's very difficult to do a musical thrones here.

In that situation I don’t see why not - there’s still a third piece to add to the Naples-Bavaria triangle, the Spanish Netherlands. Karl ends up down south as King of Sicily, the Emperor ends up with Bavaria, and then the Spanish Netherlands are given to Maximilian (or his son Charles if they want to cut the ambitious Maximilian out)
 
In that situation I don’t see why not - there’s still a third piece to add to the Naples-Bavaria triangle, the Spanish Netherlands. Karl ends up down south as King of Sicily, the Emperor ends up with Bavaria, and then the Spanish Netherlands are given to Maximilian (or his son Charles if they want to cut the ambitious Maximilian out)

I'm not sure how that would fare. The Austrians had just fought to KEEP the Southern Netherlands, and Britain and the Dutch would have an interest in keeping it OUT of French(-allied) hands. True, Max is a relative equal opportunistic person in much the same way ashis cousin, the duke of Savoy. But while Austria might agree to it (as they did in the 1770s) Europe (read Britain) might not.
 
Wasn't the assumption that they'd leave the Bavarian with Sardinia when the Treaty of Utretch was signed? Just let leave the Bavarian there Austria keeps Naples, Bavaria and the S. Netherlands. It's also make for an interesting War of the Quadruple Coalition, seeing as the Spanish went for Sardinia first.
 
Wasn't the assumption that they'd leave the Bavarian with Sardinia when the Treaty of Utretch was signed? Just let leave the Bavarian there Austria keeps Naples, Bavaria and the S. Netherlands. It's also make for an interesting War of the Quadruple Coalition, seeing as the Spanish went for Sardinia first.

Give the Wittelsbach Sardinia and let Piemont get Sicily. This keep the former Bavarian Wittelbach down and the Savoy will be forced to stay allied to Austria to protect Sicily from Spain (the forced trade for Sardinia in OTL was idiotic).
 
Then the issue becomes this; if Josef survives and the Grand alliance still fails to secure Spain for the Archduke, then Naples becomes the fallback crown for Karl, or rather Carlo VI. So it's eavevery difficult to do a musical thrones here.

How about if Karl gets killed in a skirmish (or dies of fever) c1709?

That leaves Austria with no candidate for the Spanish throne. So the "No peace without Spain" policy becomes less appealing, and Joseph might be willing to waive this claim, ao peace might be made in 1710. At that time the Allies were in a stronger position than in 1714, so Austria could probably have acquired Bavaria.

The Elector Palatine could have been appeased by letting him keep the Upper Palatinate. Also, he was childless and his brother had only daughters, while the next heir, Joseph Charles of Sulzbach, was conveniently still single, so could have been married to Joseph I's elder daughter, who with Karl gone would be heiress to the Austrian throne.
 
Top