Worst Possible outcome of the War of Spanish Succession for France?

[Antipater]

By 1709, France was really on the ropes, having been decisively defeated in Germany (Blenheim) and Belgium (Oudenarde), while Eugene of Savoy was rampaging around Northern Italy. During that year Louis XIV sued for peace, offering to abandon his grandson Philip V, and the entire Spanish empire to the Allies.

In OTL, the Allies wanted even more, and so rebuffed Louis XIV's offer. Faced with the choice between going to war with his grandson (the Allies wanted him to expel Philip V from Spain), and the rest of Europe, Louis chose to continue the war, and managed to keep the throne for Philip. What if the Allies had agreed to Louis XIV's terms in 1708? Would this have represented the worst possible outcome for France, or could the Allies have imposed an even more severe settlement on the French with a few more victories in 1709?

 

[Falecius]

Interesting thread.
One important reason why the Allies did not accept the French offer was the already growing divide between them, roughly on a diehard Austrian perspective focused on the Spanish throne opposing a more opportunistic British stance aimed at weakening France and grabbing as much Spanish empire as possible.
The Dutch were basically worried about Spanish Low Countries.
However, France would lose much in a peace in 1709. Lille and Dunkirk at least will be returned to the Netherlands (probably under Charles) and maybe Strasburg to the HRE too. Colony-wise, Britain and Netherlands will get most of the French possessions if not all, and maybe something Spanich too.
Interestingly enough, this kind of peace is going to last little. In 1711 Joseph of Austria will die, and Charles would inherit both Spain and Austria (with Netherlands, Milan and Naples). This would probably entail an early war of Austrian succession which could intermingle with the great North war. I guess that it might be Netherlands-Austria-Spain-Denmark vs. France-Britain-Portugal (and maybe Sweden).

 

[Antipater]

Interesting thread.

Thanks!

Interestingly enough, this kind of peace is going to last little. In 1711 Joseph of Austria will die, and Charles would inherit both Spain and Austria (with Netherlands, Milan and Naples). This would probably entail an early war of Austrian succession which could intermingle with the great North war. I guess that it might be Netherlands-Austria-Spain-Denmark vs. France-Britain-Portugal (and maybe Sweden).

Do you really think that the Allies would be ready to go to war a scant two years after the conclusion of the last one? Most of the major contestants had been fighting almost continuously since 1689, with some brief intermissions. France was in no state to get into another major war, and in GB, there was a great deal of war weariness and skepticism over wars on the continent.

I think another partition would be the most likely outcome, or at least the most rational one. Then again, statesmen thought they had negotiated to avoid the war of Spanish succession before it broke out as well.

 

[papermario]

Thanks!



Do you really think that the Allies would be ready to go to war a scant two years after the conclusion of the last one? Most of the major contestants had been fighting almost continuously since 1689, with some brief intermissions. France was in no state to get into another major war, and in GB, there was a great deal of war weariness and skepticism over wars on the continent.

I think another partition would be the most likely outcome, or at least the most rational one. Then again, statesmen thought they had negotiated to avoid the war of Spanish succession before it broke out as well.

Your doubts really remind me of the similarities this settlement has to the Polish-Saxon Crisis after the Napoleonic Wars. Similarly, while all of Europe had been at war for quite, such a shift in the balance of power could not be tolerated. Just as there is a fair chance a new war would have broken out over Polish-Saxon Crisis, a war here is pretty likely, despite the lack of time and preparation on both sides.

 

[Falecius]

Do you really think that the Allies would be ready to go to war a scant two years after the conclusion of the last one? Most of the major contestants had been fighting almost continuously since 1689, with some brief intermissions. France was in no state to get into another major war, and in GB, there was a great deal of war weariness and skepticism over wars on the continent.

I think another partition would be the most likely outcome, or at least the most rational one. Then again, statesmen thought they had negotiated to avoid the war of Spanish succession before it broke out as well.

They'll not be ready. But I hardly see Europe (except probably the Netherlands, out of fear of France) not opposing the Hapsubrgs recreating the Empire of Charles V.

 

[Janprimus]

They'll not be ready. But I hardly see Europe (except probably the Netherlands, out of fear of France) not opposing the Hapsubrgs recreating the Empire of Charles V.

Even the Dutch Republic wouldn't have liked that idea, so as long as France doesn't get the Southern Netherlands, they would also join a coalition to prevent this. Although the Republic wasn't really interested in the Southern Netherlands themselves (the Republic was dominated by protestants and the Spithern Netherlands had a vast Catholic majority); they just didn't want a powerful neighbour (France) with a nearby powerbase, which also had expansionist tendecies, which were their last experiencies with France.

 

[Falecius]

Even the Dutch Republic wouldn't have liked that idea, so as long as France doesn't get the Southern Netherlands, they would also join a coalition to prevent this. Although the Republic wasn't really interested in the Southern Netherlands themselves (the Republic was dominated by protestants and the Spithern Netherlands had a vast Catholic majority); they just didn't want a powerful neighbour (France) with a nearby powerbase, which also had expansionist tendecies, which were their last experiencies with France.

Yes, but in the event of a war, France would have a serious chance of getting the Southern Netherlands, and the Dutch would have little reason to trust them.
I still see the Dutch Republic as a very reluctant Hapsburg ally.
By the way, at the end of the whole series of wars, BOTH France and the Hapsurg states would be in a terrible shape... Britain could emerge even more strong than OTL.

 

[Antipater]

By the way, at the end of the whole series of wars, BOTH France and the Hapsurg states would be in a terrible shape... Britain could emerge even more strong than OTL.

That is an interesting thought. Whatever the balance of power on paper, another war of succession following the Spanish one would leave France and Austria, to say nothing of the Northern Italian and German states exhausted. While the British could certainly benefit in the colonial arena from a supine France (moving in on their territory in North America, and perhaps taking over their trading posts in India), they might not be the biggest winner. The Turks had been in an expansionist mood since around 1710, defeating Russia and Venice. Another European war could have drained Austria to an extent that they would lose the Austro-Turkish war of 1716. That could lead to a restoration of the Ottoman Empire's borders to pre-1699, or at least allow them to make serious gains in Hungary and Croatia.

On the subject of the Spanish Netherlands, I think an acceptable outcome might be the establishment of Southern Netherlands as an independant power under some German Duke. Or perhaps some kind of partition, with the Netherlands getting Northern half, and maybe the Elector (Prince-Bishop) or Trier or Cologne getting the Southern half.