If France manages to keep the Austrian Netherlands in the 18th century, does that mean French HRE?

[Sardar]

It's well known how Louis XV in the War of Austrian Succession returned the Austrian Southern Netherlands instead of annexing them outright. This was pretty stupid, as he only did it to look good (which of course didn't really work), and the annexation of the region had long been a goal of France and French Kings. Him keeping the Southern Netherlands is a popular topic on this site, so lets use a bit of handwavium and say the region is a part of France from the mid-18th century onwards.

The Southern Netherlands were still a part of the HRE in this period, so I was thinking: might the annexation of the Southern Netherlands entice the French Kings to pursue the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire? In the 18th century this was never considered AFAIK, but might it be if things change?

Pros if this idea:
-Prestige. The Kingdom of France was often considered the most prestigious and illustrious Crown in all Europe, and adding the Imperial title (plus the titles King of Germany, King of Italy, and King of the Romans) would make it indisputably so. It would reunite the titles of the old Carolingian Empire, making the King of France the uncontested heir of Charlemagne and Rome in Christendom.
-The smaller German states may be in favor of it - there wasn't much love lost between Saxony and Bavaria and the Austrians, and were allied with the French in the 18th century, so trading an Austrian Emperor for a French one might be supported by the Wettins and Wittelsbachs.
-Prussia could also support it to screw Austria
-Britain may not object; and figure that a France spending all her blood and gold on keeping hold of Germany rather than challenging British sea power may be to her benefit.

Cons:
-The HRE in the 18th century was largely a historic institution with little to no real power
-Britain-Hanover would vehemently oppose it, if not politically then simply on principle.
-The Russians might object
-It might be really, really expensive, bringing Revolution to France earlier

So might an 18th French Emperor be a possibility if an annexation of the Southern Netherlands occurs, inflaming the ambitions of the Bourbons?

 

[Analytical Engine]

If France annexes the Southern Netherlands, they get removed from HRE territory, much like what happened to all of France's other gains in the region.

If a French king was serious about becoming Emperor during this period, they would have tried. They didn't.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

The last French King to seriously consider standing for election was Louis XIV, IIRC. Mazarin led to the formation of the League of the Rhine in the aftermath of the 1658 election to constrain Emperor Leopold. Even in 1658, the Holy Roman Empire was rapidly becoming a shadow of what it once was because of the Peace of Westphalia. Before him, there was François I who stood against Charles V.

By the 18th century the HRE derided by enlightenment philosophers as a derelict and moribund institution. I don't see any French king in the 18th century wanting to stand for election then: it would be severely out of step with the times.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

The 18th century empire was a lot more active and vibrant than what people are saying- the position of emperor does hold real power, and the power of the emperor is not the yardstick by which you should measure the empire- the institutions of the reichstag, the reichskammergericht and the aulic court continued to be bodies that were relied upon by everyone involved to underpin political life.

Unlike France or England, there was never a movement in the empire to radically overhaul the form of government, largely because people agreed that the way things were worked pretty well.

But yh even Louis XIV is probably too late for France to win an imperial election- I would even go for a fifteenth century pod where France gets the undivided Burgundian inheritance. From that base, they could definitely get enough electors to be crowned emperor, especially considering they’ve also probably made good on the claim to Naples, meaning barring Iberia, this is a pretty universal Western European monarchy.

Francis I’s attempt in the 1519 election is indicative of attitudes at the time- Charles V won largely by painting Francis as a foreign adventurer with no ties to the empire. This wouldn’t have worked if Francis was master of all the imperial estates in the Low Countries, the free county of burgundy and Provence. If Francis I was too foreign, 18th century French monarchs were practically alien, especially after Louis XIV had whipped the Protestant population into a frenzy by his destruction of Heidelberg and general brutality in the 9 years war.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

The 18th century empire was a lot more active and vibrant than what people are saying- the position of emperor does hold real power, and the power of the emperor is not the yardstick by which you should measure the empire- the institutions of the reichstag, the reichskammergericht and the aulic court continued to be bodies that were relied upon by everyone involved to underpin political life.

Absolutely. But in terms of being a formal state, the state of the empire in 1648 and beyond is a far cry to the empire and how it functioned in the time of Charles V, or even before that. The Aulic Court was definitely well ran, but the same can't be said of the Imperial Chamber Court; it was pretty infamous for how long cases could take to resolve, with some cases lasting over a hundred years: though I will concede it did play an important role in the enlightenment period in the development of civil liberties within Germany. As for the Reichstag... it was an important organ, and the perpetual diet was an important tool of Habsburg power in the 17th century. But by the eighteenth century the Reichstag too had become a rather dysfunctional body and functioned more as a diplomatic body.

I disagree however, that there was never any movement to reform the government. There were plenty attempts for Imperial Reform, dating back to the time of Emperor Sigismund, but they floundered because of disagreements between Sigismund and the Princes. The Imperial Chamber Court and Aulic Court were established as part of Maximilian's imperial reforms, which tried to establish many new innovations, such as a common penny tax, the creation of a common imperial government (the Reichsregiment), the establishment of a perpetual peace, and the extension of Roman Law across the whole of the empire. Some reforms were more successful than others, and Charles V attempted to revive some of his grandfather's plans, too: but the reformation and religious issues largely derailed that.

Certainly the HRE of the eighteenth century wasn't a complete basket case: the system established at Westphalia did function as intended.

 

[AsukaEMP]

Well the electorate consists of

1. Bohemia, which is ruled by the Habsburgs themselves
2. Hanover, whose elector is also the king of Great Britain and France's arch-nemesis
3. Saxony, a longstanding ally of the Habsburgs and an open enemy of France during the earlier Polish succession war
4. Prussia, who'd prefer a weaker emperor
5. Bavaria and the Palatinate Wittelsbachs, who were French allies but they also had their own ambitions
6. The three ecclesiastical electors, two of which were generally Habsburg loyalists and one who was (usually) a member of the Wittelsbach clique above. Also French armies had a bad habit of waltzing through their territories.

I don't see a clear path for the king of France to become emperor at this point. You need 5 votes for a majority and France only had 3 likely allies, maybe 4 at best. And that's only if all of those would be willing to put their own ambitions aside for Louis XV, which I just don't see happening. Meanwhile there are 5 of which you can say with 90% certainty that they're not going to vote for France.​

 

[Sardar]

The last French King to seriously consider standing for election was Louis XIV, IIRC. Mazarin led to the formation of the League of the Rhine in the aftermath of the 1658 election to constrain Emperor Leopold. Even in 1658, the Holy Roman Empire was rapidly becoming a shadow of what it once was because of the Peace of Westphalia. Before him, there was François I who stood against Charles V.

By the 18th century the HRE derided by enlightenment philosophers as a derelict and moribund institution. I don't see any French king in the 18th century wanting to stand for election then: it would be severely out of step with the times.

Might a Louis XV which, instead of being Louis XIV's great-grandson, is le petit dauphin? It seems at least from the wiki page that Louis XIV was rather close with his eldest grandson, and he himself was politically astute. Might he want to revive his grandfather's ambitions, purely to attach greater prestige to the French Crown?

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

it was pretty infamous for how long cases could take to resolve, with some cases lasting over a hundred years:

Well I’d say that as well is a feature rather than a bug- if cases could run so long, that encourages cooperation and diplomatic solution that allow you to settle outside of court.

I disagree however, that there was never any movement to reform the government. There were plenty attempts for Imperial Reform

Well no of course- there were plenty of movements for imperial reform, but unlike France or England there was never a push for a revolutionary change like the abolishment of the monarchy.

 

[holycookie]

So might an 18th French Emperor be a possibility if an annexation of the Southern Netherlands occurs, inflaming the ambitions of the Bourbons?

During this period the French kings were not seeking to be part of the HRE. Now the impact of France conquering and maintaining this region will make the country richer. Whether this will prevent the French revolution in the long term I don't know. But with this victory I imagine that France will push harder towards the Rhine. At the same time, Austria will be weaker, and the Dutch have France as a neighbor, which is bad for them. This will also impact the strength of the French navy.

 

[lucullus]

No French HRE, no way. France would not even want to be part of it. It does means that Belgium probably never ends up independent of France. It also makes French Rhineland more realistic/palatable to the rest of the world.

 

[Yorel]

It's well known how Louis XV in the War of Austrian Succession returned the Austrian Southern Netherlands instead of annexing them outright. This was pretty stupid, as he only did it to look good (which of course didn't really work)

It wasn't really just to look good. Louis XV described the move as brokering peace like a King and not a Merchant. So in truth, he probably believed the move to be a genuine good thing to do. But of course, that was incredibly naive and idealistic...

The Southern Netherlands were still a part of the HRE in this period, so I was thinking: might the annexation of the Southern Netherlands entice the French Kings to pursue the Crown of the Holy Roman Empire? In the 18th century this was never considered AFAIK, but might it be if things change?

Not really. France didn't really have interests in Germany beyond maybe the Rhineland. As is, the French were more than happy to ally to various German states constituting the HRE than snatch the imperial crown itself.

Saxony, a longstanding ally of the Habsburgs and an open enemy of France during the earlier Polish succession war

The thing with Saxony is that France also had a habit of employing members of the Saxon family has generals. Louis XV also ended up marrying his eldest son to a Saxon princess later down his life. So in truth Saxony was probably more "neutral" towards France.

That being said, they'd probably still not want the French King on the Imperial throne.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

The handwavium is extreme. What possible reason would Britain ( and for that matter the Dutch) to agree to this. The Treaty is between them and then presented to Austrian et al who are mightily pissed off at having to stop the war. One of the terms of Ai La Chapelle is Prussia gets Silesia - so that won't happen. There is a Russian Army on the Rhine about to enter France and after Finisterre and the Voyage of the Weazel across the Atlantic most of the French merchant fleet was in British Harbours, most of the French revenues lost and France itself starving. There is an Austria army at Genoa ( and the French Army defeated).

France has to get Britain out of the war and Britain wants the French out of the Netherlands. If the war continues France is Broke and eating dirt. Saxe entire purpose in attacking the Netherlands is to stop Britain backing the other allies. This works, but at the cost of ruining France. If the price of peace is to status quo ante bellum in return for France exiling the Stuarts, and funding the war thats probably reasonable for Britain ( albeit also not continuing to fund Austrian attempts to recover Silesia but thats not a major British consideration). And ofc the Anglo French Proxy wars in North America and Indian Subcontinent continue.


The issue of the Franco Saxon 'friendship' well there is none really, Stronger ground with Poland, but partitions and all that. Saxe is Saxon (well he is one of Augustus many Bastards) his mother who is Swedish and he is a Marshal of France, Lowendal is from Hamburg, serves in the Saxon army ( also Danish and Russian) before taking French Service and thats about it. But this is an era when a Frenchman commands the English army and Englishman the French, an Italian the Austrian, a Scotsman the Russian, and allegedly a Scotsman also commands a Turkish army. Nationality is not what it would become.

If you do the handwavium then France basically gets nothing else certainly not the HRE, the next Scheduled election would be on the Death of Francis in 1765 and then we know what happens. Frederick gets Guineas but has to help protect Hanover and the Dutch want to stay neutral.

 

[holycookie]

The handwavium

Hand what?

. What possible reason would Britain ( and for that matter the Dutch) to agree to this.

They don't have to agree. France in the otl returned the territory, it was not forced to return it. If the country does not return this region, the English will not return Louisburg. Louis XV return the then austrian netherlands because he wanted to be seen as a kind king and because he was convinced by some of his advisers that if he did not, he would have an everlasting war against Great Britain (which was right, the french holding that land was a casus belli for the UK). But the think is the truer casus belli for England was any power threatening its beginning sea and trade domination. So france would be at war with the uk anyway, war to the death. In 1748 UK was in fact not in a position to demand the return of the austrian netherlands and it was a divine surprise that France offered to return it.

One of the terms of Ai La Chapelle is Prussia gets Silesia - so that won't happen.

It's not like France wouldn't throw Prussia to the wolves if they benefited from it. If Austria demands Silesia again in exchange for recognizing this French advance, so be it. It's politics.

 

[Sardar]

During this period the French kings were not seeking to be part of the HRE. Now the impact of France conquering and maintaining this region will make the country richer. Whether this will prevent the French revolution in the long term I don't know. But with this victory I imagine that France will push harder towards the Rhine. At the same time, Austria will be weaker, and the Dutch have France as a neighbor, which is bad for them. This will also impact the strength of the French navy.

No French HRE, no way. France would not even want to be part of it. It does means that Belgium probably never ends up independent of France. It also makes French Rhineland more realistic/palatable to the rest of the world.

I didn't think France would be a part of the HRE. I was reading threads on the subject and it seems France was permanently separate from the HRE due it being an original part of Charlemagne's Empire.

It wasn't really just to look good. Louis XV described the move as brokering peace like a King and not a Merchant. So in truth, he probably believed the move to be a genuine good thing to do. But of course, that was incredibly naive and idealistic...

Not really. France didn't really have interests in Germany beyond maybe the Rhineland. As is, the French were more than happy to ally to various German states constituting the HRE than snatch the imperial crown itself.

That makes sense. I had thought about this idea because the French Kings may think that getting the Imperial Crown would be an easier way to influence the Rhineland than grab more territorial gains after the Southern Netherlands.

It would be the less territorially aggressive but also the more prestigious alternative than annexing more of the Rhineland or Dutch Republic even.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I didn't think France would be a part of the HRE. I was reading threads on the subject and it seems France was permanently separate from the HRE due it being an original part of Charlemagne's Empire.

This was something fiercely debated from around 1100-1300- the original ideology of Charlemagne’s empire being the continuation the Roman 4th monarchy meant that the authority of the holy emperor was theoretically the highest throughout all the lands of the Roman Empire, or even the entire world.

French royal jurists initially had to argue that unlike any other kingdom, the kingdom of France was not subject to the empire due to Charlemagne willing it as special patrimony to his descendants. Against this was the view held by jurists more faithful to Roman law, even those based in France who held “it is impossible for the kingdom of France to not be part of the empire. If the king of France disagrees, I simply do not care”.

Nevertheless France being in personal union with the title of emperor doesn’t mean that France itself is part of the empire legally, and that’s how it would be interpreted after the 14th century.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

They don't have to agree. France in the otl returned the territory, it was not forced to return it. If the country does not return this region, the English will not return Louisburg. Louis XV return the then austrian netherlands because he wanted to be seen as a kind king and because he was convinced by some of his advisers that if he did not, he would have an everlasting war against Great Britain (which was right, the french holding that land was a casus belli for the UK). But the think is the truer casus belli for England was any power threatening its beginning sea and trade domination. So france would be at war with the uk anyway, war to the death. In 1748 UK was in fact not in a position to demand the return of the austrian netherlands and it was a divine surprise that France offered to return it.

But if Britain does not agree France is ruined. It can't import, it can't move goods by coastal routes, it can't pay the troops. The outcome of Finisterre was the effective destruction of most of the merchant marine its either taken or under blockade in the west indies. The Treaty is agreed between France and Britain (and the Dutch who are the hosts and well someone needs to make the tea) who then tell everyone else what the deal is and tough.

What most folk don't get is the importance of the West Indies, St Domingue in particular, to France its about half the annual Royal income ( probably about 25% of the total economy but you cant tax most of that). And now the Brits will sell the sugar and make the the money, which they will use it to fund the Austrians and Russians to invade France who now cannot pay their army, the fleets is less of a problem, no fleet. From France point of view access to those revenues is vastly more important than the Austrian Netherlands. And they are revenues. 95% of French overseas trade is reexported and taxed by France. Which uses the taxes to pay for things like armies. St Domingue will still grow sugar and make rum. It will still need to import food. The only difference is that trade will now be 'smuggled' in mostly British bottoms who will then reexport it and tax the transactions and use the money to fund other people to fight the French until they see reason.

The entire object of the Saxe's invasion is to force Britain to stop backing Austria. Surrendering it is not Louis being a kind King, that's the explanation as to why he agrees to an apparently humiliating climb down.

Handwavium is the act of ignoring inconvenient issues to make things work, which is fine except when it comes to things like gravity and money.

 

[holycookie]

But if Britain does not agree France is ruined.

Not ruined, in a very bad economic situation for sure (It will probably declare bankruptcy in the future). Now with France on the border of the Dutch, whatever the UK does to them they can do to the Dutch. Which kills the English ally. Without him, England has nothing to rely on to hold France back. Perhaps the war will last another 2 or 3 years (weck maybe even 5 years). But after that, peace will be declared until the next war.

It The Treaty is agreed between France and Britain (and the Dutch who are the hosts and well someone needs to make the tea)

The agreement made no logical sense and only occurred because the French king was a fool. France gained more by simply annexing the territory, and ask for peace later on. If the UK refuses and continues, well France can always attack the Dutch. Using the excuse of economic damage caused by the UK to plunder Dutch wealth. That's the crux of the matter. UK can either continue fighting and throw its ally to the wolves and alienate future and present allies or accept the new French position.

St Domingue in particular, to France its about half the annual Royal income

I know well how important this island is to France

now the Brits will sell the sugar and make the the money, which they will use it to fund the Austrians and Russians to invade France

The Austrians were too weak for this to happen and the Russians have an interest of their own. Both are not vassals of the English. If the French offer the Russians/Austrians a good deal, they will accept it. Throw the Poles to the Russians (or even the Prussians, the Russians have wanted East Prussia for a long time).The Prussians to Austria (Silesia is what the austrians are really after). Weck if they are smart that and an alliance/marriage with Russia would be a great idea.

who now cannot pay their army, the fleets is less of a problem, no fleet.

They can pay it just won't be seen in a noble way, but war is not something noble. If the war continues, they will advance on the Dutch and will win (as they were already in the region). Get everything that isn't nailed to the wall in the Netherlands. This will make enough money to last until the war (and probably a few years after).

From France point of view access to those revenues is vastly more important than the Austrian Netherlands.

From a French point of view, Austrian Netherlands is more valuable in the long term. That's why the king's choice was so perplexing for everyone (from allies to enemies). And most important to my knowledge, the English had no control over the island. They only managed to actually occupy the island in 1798 when France was a republic. So no, they won't sell the sugar (as you said before), because they don't have access to it. TTL the UK was a naval power on the rise, on the rise is the key word. In this war, most attempts to hold back the West Indies went wrong. The sugar sold by the UK and the gold in the banks mostly came from the Portuguese Empire (an English economic vassal)

British bottoms who will then reexport it and tax the transactions and use the money to fund other people to fight the French until they see reason.

And France can plunder the English allies until they see reason. This is not the era of Pax Britanica, the country is not all powerful.

Surrendering it is not Louis being a kind King, that's the explanation as to why he agrees to an apparently humiliating climb down.

Luis had a lack of neurons, and should have died when he was sick. He chose to do this because he thought he would be able to have a good future relationship with the UK, so yes he was stupid.

 

[sarahz]

If France annexes the Southern Netherlands, they get removed from HRE territory, much like what happened to all of France's other gains in the region.

If a French king was serious about becoming Emperor during this period, they would have tried. They didn't.

Even if it did not it would not mean the French would seek or could seek the Imperial Throne or Kingship of Rome. After all Holstein being within the HRE did not deliver the Imperial Crown to Denmark.

 

[Sardar]

This is not exactly similar to the original purpose of the thread, but what would France do next after annexing the Austrian Netherlands? What would France's next geopolitical goals in Europe be? Would the abolition of the HRE, rather than the gaining of the HRE, be desirable so France could more easily influence the small German states, or simply to have a permanent friend/puppet possess the imperial Crown (like the Wittelsbachs)?

 

[Xavier]

This is not exactly similar to the original purpose of the thread, but what would France do next after annexing the Austrian Netherlands? What would France's next geopolitical goals in Europe be? Would the abolition of the HRE, rather than the gaining of the HRE, be desirable so France could more easily influence the small German states, or simply to have a permanent friend/puppet possess the imperial Crown (like the Wittelsbachs)?

You don't easily end an instutution that has existed for nearly a millenia (exact age depends on how you count) and which suits most rulers that are part of it. OTL it took Napoleon's massive, swift victories to create the necessary system shock. An Ancien Régime state is highly unlikely to ever create such a shock (no desire to rock the boat to that extent, no levée en masse armies, and no higly meritocratic officer corps). So that rules out the abolition of the HRE as a likely goal.

To have a puppet possess the crown requires, at this time, 5 votes, for which I refer back to post #6. Getting the votes for a clear French puppet is not going to be much, if any, easier than for a French king.

The likely goals would be first of all to keep the Southern Netherlands (and maybe get some free access to the Western Scheldt for my hometown, Antwerp). Probably not that difficult, as the Dutch are well past their peak as great power at this point, Austria obviously no longer cares and is happy to be freed of this territory on the wrong side of the empire, Prussia not too much either as long as France stays away from Cleves and East Frisia, and the British basically can't do squat on the European mainland without at least a half decent ally.

Secondly, the classic Rhine border, but that would be piece-by-piece as opportunities present themselves. The Prince-Bishopric of Liège would likely be the easiest victim.

EDIT: as the exact way of how France gets the Southern Netherlands isn't specified, my overheated-by-a-heavy-cold brain conflated the conquest in War of Austrian Succession scenario with the 2nd Treaty of Versailles where Philip of Parma gets the Southern Netherlands (minus a couple towns) in return for helping Austria getting back Silesia. Austria actually and officially not caring would only be valid for the latter (or a variation where France does get full possession of the whole thing). For the former, they would care to some extent, but likely also still end up losing Silesia to Prussia as OTL. As Silesia is right next to Austria's core territories, that would be the primary focus for recovery, while the Southern Netherlands are still a difficult to defend place for Austria, so they would more likely seek compensation (if an opportunity presents itself) than recovery there.