Could the war of Spanish Succession be avoided, or would France start the war to press Philip of Anjou's claim? Would Charles of Austria still become Holy Roman Emperor, making the domains of Charles VI comparable to Charles V's? Would Maria Theresa inherit Spain? How would a reunited Hapsburg empire change history?
What if Charles II of Spain named Charles of Austria his heir?
- Thread starter Coqui
- Start date
unprincipled peter
Donor
There's going to be war. Austria was intent on taking it all. It's why France went to war, OTL, because they knew Austria would not accept a partition. Here, Austria will claim Spain, and then claim the rest of the Empire to go with it. France will want something. The question is whether they go for it all, or settle for the partition. OTL, France had a head start with Philip taking the throne, and France cutting a deal with Max of Bavaria to possess the Netherlands. Perhaps here, they settle for a partition. They go to war with Austria, but if they don't bungle diplomatically (which is a good possibility considering the bungling of OTL), England/Britain will stay on the sidelines, and France wins the war easily.
But, things have to change more than just the Will beneficiary to make it a safe bet that France will settle for a partition. Louis XIV was lousy at reading a situation.
As I've said in the past, the Will is not all that important. What all the foreign powers decide is what determines what happens. The Will gives a little moral high ground, but that is far distant in importance to military might.
But, things have to change more than just the Will beneficiary to make it a safe bet that France will settle for a partition. Louis XIV was lousy at reading a situation.
As I've said in the past, the Will is not all that important. What all the foreign powers decide is what determines what happens. The Will gives a little moral high ground, but that is far distant in importance to military might.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Karl taking the Spanish throne resets the field for his offspring. He's doing the boom boom on different nights, as his life/schedule is completely different, so it is extremely unlikely he has the same offspring. He may very well only sire surviving females, but the reverse could be true, too, or he may have no surviving offspring. Habsburg Spain did not have Salic Law. In absense of male heirs, Karl will not change that.
With Europe having very different mass movements of people, there's no guarantee the Smallpox makes it to Vienna when/where it did, so Joseph I may live much longer. IF he still predeceases Karl without male heir, Karl likely slides over to Austria, becoming HRE, and one of Karl's kids takes over Spain. IF Karl has a male heir, it's possible that son goes to Austria and becomes HRE. There's a massive European war if Karl tries ruling both Spain and Austria.
IF Karl is still in Spain in 1740, he lives longer, as he won't be on a hunting adventure in Austria, eating poisonous mushrooms. Even if he returns to Austria prior to 1740 after ruling in Spain, it is unlikely the adventure is the same, so again he's spared. Some think it was intentional poisoning, and if so, he may still get bumped off. The cause for assassination is unlikely to be of similar intensity if he's still in Spain, so I'm guessing it is butterflied. The incentives/desires for killing him may vary greatly depending on when he returns to Austria, if he does so. Bottom line, my money is on his death being greatly altered.
With Europe having very different mass movements of people, there's no guarantee the Smallpox makes it to Vienna when/where it did, so Joseph I may live much longer. IF he still predeceases Karl without male heir, Karl likely slides over to Austria, becoming HRE, and one of Karl's kids takes over Spain. IF Karl has a male heir, it's possible that son goes to Austria and becomes HRE. There's a massive European war if Karl tries ruling both Spain and Austria.
IF Karl is still in Spain in 1740, he lives longer, as he won't be on a hunting adventure in Austria, eating poisonous mushrooms. Even if he returns to Austria prior to 1740 after ruling in Spain, it is unlikely the adventure is the same, so again he's spared. Some think it was intentional poisoning, and if so, he may still get bumped off. The cause for assassination is unlikely to be of similar intensity if he's still in Spain, so I'm guessing it is butterflied. The incentives/desires for killing him may vary greatly depending on when he returns to Austria, if he does so. Bottom line, my money is on his death being greatly altered.
Would Spain paying Louis XIV his wife’s dowry have changed anything? I was under the impression that France would have still found a way to wiggle out of Maria Theresa’s renunciation of her claims.
If they somehow settled on a partition, what do you see France getting? Flanders? The French march? Milan?
the problem with this is that the court was already widely divided between pro-Habsburg and pro-Bourbon, furthermore no one wanted a similar concentration of power in the hands of a single person, finally Charles had also asked the Pope for advice who had suggested that he recognize it as his legitimate successor a French nephew, possibly a minor (because the Austrian Habsburgs had the full "support" of the Protestants) even if the pontiff himself was personally in favor of some division between France and Austria that could avoid the war (the courtiers in Madrid did not unfortunately they were of the same opinion)
Completely wrong. The Habsburg had zero intention originally to unite the realms. The older brother, Joseph was to inherit the Austrian posessions and the Empire and his younger brother Charles was to inherit the Spanish Crown and all what came with it. And thats what happened OTL and that was the situation when the war of spanish succession broke out (at that time their father Leopold was still alive - died in 1705). None knew that Joseph would die at only 32 in smallpox and without an male heir in 1711 - really leaving Charles to be in line to inherit everything. It was one of the main reasons that the pro-Habsburg alliance fell apart after that. None wanted the Empire of Charles V reunited.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Perhaps I worded it poorly. Austria wanted a Habsburg to get all of the Spanish Empire. Uniting Spain with Austria, or Spain with France, was never on the table, nor was it ever proposed. Your take is exactly as I see it, and I didn't mean to phrase it otherwise.
unprincipled peter
Donor
France, England, and Dutch Republic had a partition treaty in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_The_Hague_(1698)
Austria indicated it was not valid, even though it was a good deal for them, and ultimately it is more or less what came of the WoSS, except Bourbons and Habsburgs swapped places.
Spain didn't really matter. They didn't have the military, or diplomatic, ability to fend off a partition.
Karl was the heir in the Will after the French agreed to the partition, but then France (to the surprise of no one) worked to manipulate Carlos II into changing the Will, leaving it all to Philip. France then used this as reasoning to accept all of it for Philip, ignoring the partition treaty. An excuse was that there was going to be war anyhow, so might as well fight for it all. England was well on its way to accepting France getting it all, but Louis XIV insisted on being bellicose and ensuring England backed Austria. In a scenario where France would accept the partition, and doesn't act so bellicose to England, England would side with France, since England wanted to split the Spanish Empire. What needs to change is France not dealing in bad faith, and accepting a partition. In this scenario, they could easily take the Italian Duchies/Kingdoms. In the event of war, they could get Milan in the deal. Or, they could easily take Spain (for Philip), leaving Italy to the Habsburgs. Bourbon Netherlands is something the English/Dutch were dead set against, but OTL were well on their way to accepting, so as long as France didn't directly annex it, it can be part of the Bourbon piece of the pie. There was some thought to swapping it (or Milan) for Lorraine, although I don't think the House of Lorraine was too keen on that. Being small, they might not have much say.
If there is unanimity in Madrid supporting a decision to grant the Spanish throne to Charles he could probably secure himself in Spain and nominally the other Spanish realms but the French would attack almost immediately. Given Charles' young age (only 15 when Charles II died) and Leopold's reluctance IOTL to send him to Spain until the English forced his hand its possible that the French invade before Charles even arrives in Spain.
As long as they limit their attacks to Italy or Spain itself (ie they leave the Spanish Netherlands alone) the English and Dutch may not get involved and a lot of the German states could remain neutral since Prussia and Hanover will be concerned with war in the Baltic. Without the English navy to oppose them the French can sail to Naples and probably take it. Especially if Charles is still in Vienna. Charles isn't likely to implement the reforms in Spain that the Bourbons did IOTL and if there is a chaotic regency in Madrid for a while before he is able to get there from Austria Spain will be in bad shape and in long run probably remains relatively weak. So Charles may be unable to oppose the French successfully so the loss of Naples and Sicily will probably have to be recognized eventually.
Assuming that Joseph still dies without a male heir (which as mentioned is not guaranteed) then Charles would be put forward to succeed him but the Electors in the HRE will want to impose a strenuous electoral capitulation to ensure that Germany is not forced to fight to defend Habsburg Spain. So Charles could potentially be forced to abdicate the Spanish throne in favor of a younger child (if he has multiple children by that point) in order to secure his election.
As long as they limit their attacks to Italy or Spain itself (ie they leave the Spanish Netherlands alone) the English and Dutch may not get involved and a lot of the German states could remain neutral since Prussia and Hanover will be concerned with war in the Baltic. Without the English navy to oppose them the French can sail to Naples and probably take it. Especially if Charles is still in Vienna. Charles isn't likely to implement the reforms in Spain that the Bourbons did IOTL and if there is a chaotic regency in Madrid for a while before he is able to get there from Austria Spain will be in bad shape and in long run probably remains relatively weak. So Charles may be unable to oppose the French successfully so the loss of Naples and Sicily will probably have to be recognized eventually.
Assuming that Joseph still dies without a male heir (which as mentioned is not guaranteed) then Charles would be put forward to succeed him but the Electors in the HRE will want to impose a strenuous electoral capitulation to ensure that Germany is not forced to fight to defend Habsburg Spain. So Charles could potentially be forced to abdicate the Spanish throne in favor of a younger child (if he has multiple children by that point) in order to secure his election.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I agree with the rest of your post, but...
There's no ifs, ands, or buts, about it. Karl does not get to keep the throne of Spain if he wants to be head of Austria. Being head of Austria is the only way he gets to be HRE. Okay, IF Karl wins the massive European War of Austrian Succession (alt version moved up to Joseph's death), he's on top of the world and can rule Spain AND Austria AND be HRE. The world as we knew it in the early/mid 1700s is completely unrecognizable. Not ASB, but not likely. The likely path is he abdicates Spain in favor of an heir (OTL, I don't think he has one in 1711). If he has no heir, France moves in and takes the throne, displacing Karl to Austria. One of Joseph's daughters could be placed on the throne of Spain, which will be contested, but is the most viable Habsburg option of retaining the throne of Spain. The European world will NOT accept a united Spain and Austria.
I guess Karl could remain King of Spain, and Joseph's daughter rules Austria. Spain isn't part of HRE, though, so Karl has no claim to be Emperor. Even if he does have a claim, I would guess that he can't muster the votes from Spain.
That's fair. I guess my inclination is just to hedge a little bit since the situation 20 or so years out from the POD is not entirely clear. But yes its more likely than not that he could not be successfully elected Emperor if he insisted upon remaining on the Spanish throne.
17th century is not realy my forte but from what I remember the situation was more like France has been winning and constantly expanding for a very long while which resulted in the huge anti-french coalition that aimed at finally stopping french expansionism also known as the war of Spanish Succession. What I mean is huge french gains either in Italy let alone all of Spain with the possibility of uniting the two Kingdoms was something the british or the dutch would not have just accepted.
unprincipled peter
Donor
The world was united against France, but...
No one wants another major war. It was toward that end that the Partition Treaties were negotiated. Britain was willing to accept France getting Italy, and signed off on it in writing. Spain was a prize to be captured, or divided. Britain/Dutch wanted division, as the best of all options. They were most of the way toward accepting Philip getting all of it, but France forced the general war through bungling diplomacy.
Uniting Spain with another country: This is a constant mantra in alt history, but the reality is that when the WoSS broke out, Philip was third in line, with a younger brother behind him, and his grandfather and father ahead of him. His father was expected to father children, and Philip was at the age of fathering children. There was no push, or expectation, to unite France and Spain. I don't think either wanted it, as it would be untenable. Meanwhile, Karl was second in line to the Austrian throne, with no other male heirs. There was just as much revulsion over the possibility of Spain uniting with Austria as with Spain. Ultimately, with the Bourbon die-off in 1711/12, and Joseph dieing in 1711, all support for Karl ended. In 1700, though, there was more reason to fear uniting with Austria than with France.
France had not really expanded. They kept attempting to, but Louis XIV had the uncanny knack of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and only making minimal gains. The 9YW had united the world against France, and more or less stalemated. No one trusted France, for good reason, but had France done its part, only Austria would not have gone along.
I would second unprincipled peter and just add that the French could forestall any new coalition against them be avoiding the sensitive areas of Anglo-French relations. So avoid attacking the Spanish Netherlands, don't recognize the Stuart pretender. The French could probably peel off Savoy and Bavaria and maybe buy neutrality from a block of German states who have more interest in the fighting breaking out in the Baltic anyways. Then the conflict would just be France vs Spain+Austria. And if France isn't trying to conquer Spain itself just carve off chunks of territory there is no risk at all of the two uniting.
I know Wikipedia is not the best of source but it does strongly disagree with you:
Treaty of London (1700) - Wikipedia
The relevant part:
The main change from the First Treaty was to replace Joseph Ferdinand as heir to the Spanish throne with Leopold's younger son Archduke Charles; Spain retained its empire outside Europe and the Spanish Netherlands but France would gain the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, the Spanish province of Gipuzkoa and exchange the Duchy of Lorraine for the Duchy of Milan.[11] France would then transfer Naples and Sicily to Victor Amadeus II of Sardinia in exchange for the Counties of Nice and Savoy, the transalpine territories of the Savoyard state which finally become part of France after the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859.
The point is the agreement you are talking about did indeed contain that France would get the Italian parts of the Spanish Empire but it gave Spain and the Spanish Netherlands to Archduke Charles, not at all "a prize to be captured".
Yes, as that would mean who France would have absolutely no claim to anything. The dowry of Maria Teresa being (partially) unpaid was the only reason for which France was able to advance a claim.
The question is whether Louis would have honoured it. The French and Louis XIV in particular were quite notorious at finding excuses at starting wars. They even had a court that does that. Would not surprise me at all if Louis XIV found some BS excuse to dismiss the renunciation clause.
Last edited:
If the whole dowry was paid he has no excuse at all. His wife brought a very massive dowry exclusively because she had to renounce to all her rights to Spain (and obviously to all the ones of her heirs). Louis’ brother Philip of Orleans tried to advance his own claim to the Spanish inheritance as son of Anne of Austria but everyone told him who he had no claim as his mother had renounced to all her rights
Difference is Philip of Orleans had no armies. Louis has. His claim is also behind both Louis’ descendants, the Austrians and Louis himself(even if he argued that the renunciation was invalid). So of course no one takes him seriously. Similarly, the Austrians had no claim IOTL either given Maria Theresa’s renunciation IOTL was clearly invalid given the lack of dowry, but it didn’t stop them from claiming the throne . Louis IOTL agreed to partition the Spanish Inheritance with the Austrians, but when the time came he decided to fight for the whole thing anyway in breach of the agreement made in 1700. When people have armies, and think they can win, what’s written on a piece of paper doesn’t mean much if one side had no intention of observing it. This is why I suspect that even if the dowry is paid, Louis will still find an excuse to fight for the Spanish throne the ‘law’ be damned.
Last edited: