WI: France joins the War of the Bavarian Succession

Say that a more pro-Austrian person is selected as foreign minister of France in 1774 instead of Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes. What happens if during the War of the Bavarian Succession, France joins the war on the Austrian side in July of 1778?
 

Faeelin

Banned
Does France stand to benefit from this? And isn't this problematic for France? They can no longer focus on beating Britain.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Faeelin's questions are critical to answer.

However, I would say that all other things being equal, it means less French support to the ARW and possibly no oceanic war against Britain.

Since the French had emphasized their navy, their army may not be too overwhelming a pro-Austrian factor on land, although French troops could perhaps reach Cleves and Mark.

The main benefit to the Austrians would be financial, with the French giving them additional financial support that other powers (Britain) are unable and unwilling to match for Prussia because of London's preoccupation with America.

Best case for Austria, Bavaria and Palatinate are joined to the Austrian domains? Again we wonder what France gets.
 
Faeelin's questions are critical to answer.

However, I would say that all other things being equal, it means less French support to the ARW and possibly no oceanic war against Britain.

Since the French had emphasized their navy, their army may not be too overwhelming a pro-Austrian factor on land, although French troops could perhaps reach Cleves and Mark.

The main benefit to the Austrians would be financial, with the French giving them additional financial support that other powers (Britain) are unable and unwilling to match for Prussia because of London's preoccupation with America.

Best case for Austria, Bavaria and Palatinate are joined to the Austrian domains? Again we wonder what France gets.
No Austria gets Bavaria and the Bavarian Wittelsbach get Belgium.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
No Austria gets Bavaria and the Bavarian Wittelsbach get Belgium.

If that's the entirety of a pro-Austrian settlement, what is France's incentive to tip the scales in Austria's direction in the latter's struggle against Prussia?

I mean, I suppose Paris gains the satisfaction that the southern Netherlands (and maybe Julich and Berg and Palatinate) are under a relatively weak Catholic dynasty instead of the Habsburgs. This expansion of the physical separation of Habsburg and Bourbon lands might be expected reduce potential frictions within the alliance long-term, or to protect France from contact in case Habsburg-Bourbon relations go sour again.

However, I'd suspect France would really want more tangible gains for such services to Austria however. Perhaps getting Milan or Naples or Sicily?
 
I agree, the Franco-Austrian "alliance" is weak at this time. They have no reason to help Austria out of charity. Plus, the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria and the Palitinate are old allies.

In OTL, France offered mild protests while Prussia actively opposed Austria.

France wanted to keep focus on the British war.

Perhaps a compromise?

Austria gets Bavaria, the Wittelsbachs get most of the Southern Netherlands while France gets a slice?

Walloonia is contiguous and vaguely French-Speaking but Flanders has those harbors to threaten Britain.

Or perhaps Milan or Tuscany?

Note this does nothing to stop Prussia and Saxony from challenging Austria. France certainly wouldn't interfere militarily on Austria's behalf, not with the British war, and probably not even without it. Austria would be on its own to force the matter.
 
Last edited:
Instead of asking what France gets have a look at French court politics. Which faction gained most from the war against Britain, which faction might gain most from instead pursuing a more continental policy?

Once you understand the internal politics driving the situation, the nature of the 'gains' mooted to explain the shift in policy will likely take care of themselves.
 
I am not disagreeing but I don't get why the Wittelsbachs would get southern Netherlands.

Because that was the whole affair was about? the Plaz Wittelbasch wanted Belgium/Austrian netherland to join their domains in exchange the 'Bayern' Area, they have little interest about it, but frederick II who saw that as a dagger against prussia make pressure to avoid that and started the whole affair.

And France will not enter, they've little to win here(they wanted all AN for themselves)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
So, it's hard to see France having an interest in siding with Austria against Prussia. It had no interests in doing so, just a paper alliance with Austria and marriage ties that were not very popular.

Maybe we are looking for the wrong ally for the Austrians.--

..alternatives:

Britain - I don't see why that would be advantageous for either Britain or Austria. Technically, it reduces Britains diplomatic "isolation" but without providing an ally that could apply real strength against France or Spain or Netherlands on land or especially at sea. In fact the Austrian-desired territorial swap would make the Habsburgs even less relevant to British interests by having the latter cede Belgium-southern Netherlands. From Austria's POV, Britain is tied down with a lot of enemies at this time, and its basically blatant bad faith against the alliance with the French, bad for her reputation even if the alliance itself had little value.

Netherlands - maybe they prefer a local Wittelsbach state as a neighbor to their south rather than one of the great houses of Europe? -- I don't see it- why alienate the Prussians who can project some power against the Netherlands. Besides, maybe the Wittelsbachs in Belgium would be too weak and pro-French and so not be as strong a buffer against France as the the Austrians. Beyond that, the Dutch were getting much less warlike, and their assertiveness over trade rights was soon to get them into a war with Britain.

Spain - No, first for lack of any interest. Second they couldn't afford to throw their weight around in Central Europe like they had a century before--thus having little to offer the Austrians. Finally, colonial matters and eventually a war with Britain and the prospect of Gibraltar were far more valuable.

Denmark- maybe, I'm not sure why not other than perhaps being too weak to side against Prussia.

Sweden- maybe, I'm not sure why not other than perhaps being too weak to side against Prussia.

Russians - possible best bet. But Vienna and St. Petersburg would have to agree to some sort of deal that lets Russia profit (in Poland, most likely), for the Russians to have any interest in taking Austria's side.

Ottomans - don't see it. The Austrians were usually enemies and were certainly neighbors and countries didn't like to see their neighbors grow.

Unlikely oddball scenario - win Austria's Saxon opponents over to the Austrian side? The price, yielding the Austrian claim to Silesia to the Kingdom of Saxony, and aiding Saxony in securing that claim. Advantage for Saxony- contiguity between Poland and Saxony. Advantage for Austria - gaining Bavaria and Saxony as a buffer between Prussia and Austrian lands. It gives up the Silesian claim, but it was pretty apparent that was lost and not coming back after 7 Years War. Big problem with this, is that the Saxons need to count on achieving an offensive victory against Prussia that would leave the latter very angry even if it could be beaten.
 
I don't see France actively aiding this in any way despite the dynastic marriage.

However, France would likely sit this out unless their interests were wildly challenged. In fact, if France joined Prussia, Austria would likely have backed down immediately in the fact of a France, Palatinate, Prussian, Saxon coalition. That doesn't even account for Russia or the Ottoman.

To actively support this, France would need some sort of boon.

France gets a sliver of the Southern Netherlands or Habsburg Italy for their "silence".

The rest of the Southern Netherlands goes to the Wittelsbachs whom are located closeby in western Germany and didn't like Bavaria anyway. In fact, the Elector kind of liked the idea of rebuilding the "Duchy of Burgandy" from ages past.

Best change for Austria to take Bavaria peacefully is Bavaria is split between Austria and Saxony (say 2/3rds to 1/3rds). the Elector was the brother in law of one of the Palatinate heirs, plus he didn't want Austria any stronger than it was despite being allies in 7 Years War. However, getting 1/3 of Bavaria would be an adequate compensation for allowing this, especially if his Palatinate relatives are ok with it.

Only Prussia would be the problem. Maybe they get part of Austria Poland?

Or, if Frederick II's relationship with Britain has soured (as it did but not likely this much), he would be allowed to take Hanover. This is a major stretch though.
 
France was to receive Namur and Luxemburg, the rest of the Austrian Netherlands was to become a Kingdom of Burgundy for the Wittelsbachs. Austria was to annex Bavaria, at least this was the plan backed by Austria and Russia.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Best change for Austria to take Bavaria peacefully is Bavaria is split between Austria and Saxony (say 2/3rds to 1/3rds). the Elector was the brother in law of one of the Palatinate heirs, plus he didn't want Austria any stronger than it was despite being allies in 7 Years War. However, getting 1/3 of Bavaria would be an adequate compensation for allowing this, especially if his Palatinate relatives are ok with it.

A map of this would be interesting to see.

Or, if Frederick II's relationship with Britain has soured (as it did but not likely this much), he would be allowed to take Hanover. This is a major stretch though.

Even more interesting, creates a Germany that is largely divided amongst Prussian, Saxon and Austrian horizontally-aligned "stripes".

If there ever was a time (before the Napoleonic era) for Prussia to grab Hanover, the American Revolutionary war timeframe was it. It's not like Prussia had any colonial territory or navy to lose at the time.

An assault on Hanover like this would have an interesting effect on the political dynamic in Britain.

The British parliament never liked having Hanover and would have seen the King devoting excessive resources to holding Hanover as monarchical over-reach.

On the other hand, an attack on Hanover could give a strong incentive for an early end to the unpopular war against the Americans. That war had strong critics in parliament, and fighting for Hanover could have been a politically "good war" giving parliament, and importantly the king, a reasonable excuse to cut losses in America. The problem would be winning on land against the Prussians. I mean the British, if extracted from America could send some troops and subsidize Hesse and Hessians (and Austrians) to fight for Hanover, but the Prussians alone, even before we get into other anti-British coalition members (France, and later Netherlands) would be pretty overpowering on land.

Still, if there had been a grab of Hanover at this time, people might well be saying that American independence was won on the fields of Hanover as much as America, and even more places in America might have names like "Hanover Township" (where I grew up) or "King of Prussia", "Frederick", "Brandenburg" and "Berlin".

Viriato:
France was to receive Namur and Luxemburg, the rest of the Austrian Netherlands was to become a Kingdom of Burgundy for the Wittelsbachs. Austria was to annex Bavaria, at least this was the plan backed by Austria and Russia.

A-ha, it would be interesting to see a map of that too. And Russia backed such a plan----I had no idea. Russia must have only given a soft endorsement, because they did not intervene in the potato war. OK, so I see that the Austrians were offering the French something. But in no way was this going to secure them a war-winning intervention in Bavaria.

One version of the Bavarian-southern Netherlands swap I had heard was that Austria was not to gain all of what we think of as Bavaria in southeast Germany, rather just the southern half, with the northern part, just west of Bohemia, remaining Wittelsbach.
 
Say that a more pro-Austrian person is selected as foreign minister of France in 1774 instead of Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes. What happens if during the War of the Bavarian Succession, France joins the war on the Austrian side in July of 1778?

I can't see them doing this unless the British have somehow averted the revolution, and then it just becomes another 7 years war style ass kicking.
 

Faeelin

Banned
I can't see them doing this unless the British have somehow averted the revolution, and then it just becomes another 7 years war style ass kicking.

Good point! Prussia's army during the French Revolution showed that it wasn't the caliber of Frederick the Great's army; while Frederick is still alive in 1778, he's getting on in years.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Originally Posted by Timmy811 View Post
I can't see them doing this unless the British have somehow averted the revolution, and then it just becomes another 7 years war style ass kicking.

Good point! Prussia's army during the French Revolution showed that it wasn't the caliber of Frederick the Great's army; while Frederick is still alive in 1778, he's getting on in years.

I'm having trouble sorting out what Timmy811 and Faeelin are thinking.

Faeelin, I think, is implying the Prussians would not be at peak performance.

but was Timmy811 saying that a "7 years war style ass kicking" meant it was Prussia being kicked?
 
The consensus is they don't get involved in Joseph's folly. The best help the French could have given would have been to dissuade the Austrians pursuing this pointless and expensive endeavor. The way I see it, Bavaria was neutralized by the Franco-Austrian alliance and there was no need to annex its territory.

Perhaps a better bargain during this time would have been for Austria to cede the southern Netherlands to France in exchange for the right of way to annex Venetia and Dalmatia.
 
Top