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

[Sardar]

snip

I was thinking that Louis XV simply decides to keep the Southern Netherlands rather than return them.

Would the French really annex a Prince-Bishopric? Wouldn't that really piss of the Church?

And getting the Rhine border may require adding more protestants that the Bourbons are comfortable with.

 

[holycookie]

Would the French really annex a Prince-Bishopric? Wouldn't that really piss of the Church?

I mean maybe. That will depend on the pope, and how influential France is at the moment. They may throw a tantrum or simply complain. Or do nothing

And getting the Rhine border may require adding more protestants that the Bourbons are comfortable with.

Meh. The annexation of the region would also bring in enough Catholics to compensate the Protestants. The biggest problem would be if you have ethnic issues (French vs German). But other than that it's not a big problem.

 

[raharris1973]

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.

The English won't control the island. But the English could control the sea around it and prevent its sugar from getting sold by French merchants and taxes by French officials in Europe.

And if the English are the only ships in Haitian waters, they could get access to the sugar. Landowners would illegally sell it to them. They could only eat and drink so much candy and rum. They need to sell some, and buy some supplies, from the English.

 

[holycookie]

But the English could control the sea around it and prevent its sugar from getting sold by French merchants and taxes by French officials in Europe.

I mean ok, this is what happens when a colonial power failed to keep trade lines safe. The island was valuable, but without the English controlling it, they didn't have a strong bargain. In times of peace, trade returns to normal.

And if the English are the only ships in Haitian waters, they could get access to the sugar. Landowners would illegally sell it to them. They could only eat and drink so much candy and rum. They need to sell some, and buy some supplies, from the English.

Yes, there will be illegal trade, something that is normal in colonies. Not only with the English, but with the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and other merchants that want to have access to the island's sugar in exchange for supplies. This will hold the island until peace occurs. A few years later than in otl (or perhaps in the same period as in otl).

 

[Xavier]

Would the French really annex a Prince-Bishopric? Wouldn't that really piss of the Church?

Been there, done that, and totally got away with it before for the French. Admittedly, the Three Bishoprics together are several times smaller than Liège, but still, no legal differences and Liège is not an electorate. Just needs a good excuse to march in. Trier, being an electorate, is different and would likely only be possible as bonus achievent during a larger war.

And getting the Rhine border may require adding more protestants that the Bourbons are comfortable with.

Perhaps, if they care they can avoid those bits or simply go for puppetizing them. OTL, protestant Zweibrücken & Nassau-Saarbrücken (French wiki this one) both provided regiments commanded by members of the ruling dynasty soon after the War of Austrian Succession.

 

[Sardar]

Been there, done that, and totally got away with it before for the French. Admittedly, the Three Bishoprics together are several times smaller than Liège, but still, no legal differences and Liège is not an electorate. Just needs a good excuse to march in. Trier, being an electorate, is different and would likely only be possible as bonus achievent during a larger war.

What if the French tried to annex Trier?

Perhaps, if they care they can avoid those bits or simply go for puppetizing them. OTL, protestant Zweibrücken & Nassau-Saarbrücken (French wiki this one) both provided regiments commanded by members of the ruling dynasty soon after the War of Austrian Succession.

So they'd go for detaching bits and pieces of the HRE like in previous centuries. I wonder, if the French annex the Southern Netherlands, maybe annex Trier, and have greater success in Italy in the 18th century, might that spur on the HRE to reform?

 

[holycookie]

might that spur on the HRE to reform?

That or it may die and something new is born in its place. It is also entirely possible for HRE to remain a zombie until the era of nationalism (whenever that era may be).

 

[Carp]

France was very much aware of the anti-French sentiment among the German princes, which was why in the WAS they supported the Elector of Bavaria for the imperial crown rather than, say, trying to claim it for themselves. Indeed, one of the chief arguments the French made in favor of a Wittelsbach emperor was that he was more German than Francis, Maria Theresa's husband, who was the Duke of Lorraine - technically an imperial state, but culturally about as French as you can get without being literally from France. When the Bavarian candidate Charles VII died in 1745 and his son Max made peace with Austria, the French briefly tried to interest the Saxon elector in making a bid for the throne, but he sided with Austria instead. D'Argenson actually mused about the idea of electing nobody emperor and turning the HRE into a sort of "princely republic" with no crowned head at all. This was a silly idea, but the fact that he entertained it - and did not entertain the idea of a French emperor, even for a moment - should give you some sense of just how outlandish the idea would have appeared.

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.

Louis XV and his advisors considered this, but they feared that if France actually invaded the Netherlands proper it could potentially broaden the war. France vs. Austria was something everyone had seen before, but France launching a full-scale invasion of the Netherlands, one of the chief Protestant states, would be a clear escalation and a threat to the balance of power. In particular, the French feared that Prussia, which had accomplished the conquest of Silesia and had since left the war, might jump in on the side of the Dutch in order to pose as the protector of Protestantism on the continent and to oppose the expansion of French power into northern Germany.

Now, you might disagree with that analysis - perhaps it was not realistic to think that Prussia might intervene, or that other Protestant states might care enough about the Netherlands to enter the war against France. But Louis XV and his ministers did not possess the benefit of hindsight. They had been at war for years by this point and their country was suffering from unprecedented deficits and the strangulation of trade. They had lost their bid to dethrone the Habsburgs and had been defeated in America. French armies had been expelled from Italy, and although a counter-invasion into Provence had failed the Italian theater was still looking rather grim, particularly since the new Spanish king showed absolutely no interest in regaining the initiative. On the whole, I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss Louis's decision to trade the Austrian Netherlands for peace (and a return to the status quo in America) as merely the act of "a fool" - perhaps he made the wrong choice, but it was informed by the situation as he understood it, and given the perceived risk of taking the war into the Netherlands I can't really say it was a bad choice.

 

[Sardar]

France was very much aware of the anti-French sentiment among the German princes, which was why in the WAS they supported the Elector of Bavaria for the imperial crown rather than, say, trying to claim it for themselves. Indeed, one of the chief arguments the French made in favor of a Wittelsbach emperor was that he was more German than Francis, Maria Theresa's husband, who was the Duke of Lorraine - technically an imperial state, but culturally about as French as you can get without being literally from France. When the Bavarian candidate Charles VII died in 1745 and his son Max made peace with Austria, the French briefly tried to interest the Saxon elector in making a bid for the throne, but he sided with Austria instead. D'Argenson actually mused about the idea of electing nobody emperor and turning the HRE into a sort of "princely republic" with no crowned head at all. This was a silly idea, but the fact that he entertained it - and did not entertain the idea of a French emperor, even for a moment - should give you some sense of just how outlandish the idea would have appeared.

It seems that the HRE had really turned into a vehicle for German "proto-nationalism" as it were, even then. My original thoughts on for this thread were to see if it was possible to resurrect the idea of "universal monarchy" in Europe through the HRE as late as the 18th century. Oh well.

Now, you might disagree with that analysis - perhaps it was not realistic to think that Prussia might intervene, or that other Protestant states might care enough about the Netherlands to enter the war against France. But Louis XV and his ministers did not possess the benefit of hindsight. They had been at war for years by this point and their country was suffering from unprecedented deficits and the strangulation of trade. They had lost their bid to dethrone the Habsburgs and had been defeated in America. French armies had been expelled from Italy, and although a counter-invasion into Provence had failed the Italian theater was still looking rather grim, particularly since the new Spanish king showed absolutely no interest in regaining the initiative. On the whole, I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss Louis's decision to trade the Austrian Netherlands for peace as merely the act of "a fool" - perhaps he made the wrong choice, but it was informed by the situation as he understood it, and given the perceived risk of taking the war into the Netherlands I can't really say it was a bad choice.

It was my understanding the Austrian Netherlands being annexed by France was a foregone conclusion when the peace was signed, rather than something that was contested? I mean the French did conquer it and I thought everyone, even Britain, had resigned the territory to be given to France until Louis returned it.

What might you say would have happened after, if the French do nab the Southern Netherlands in any of the mid-18th century wars? Continue to try and place an ally on the Imperial throne? Or just keep chipping away at the principalities until the Princes unite against them?

 

[Carp]

It seems that the HRE had really turned into a vehicle for German "proto-nationalism" as it were, even then. My original thoughts on for this thread were to see if it was possible to resurrect the idea of "universal monarchy" in Europe through the HRE as late as the 18th century. Oh well.

I think it's possible to see the WAS as the last attempt by ancien regime France to realize the "universal monarchy," but by this point even the French understood that this would be a matter of hegemony, not direct rule. In theory, by dethroning the Habsburgs and putting a Wittelsbach on the throne with a far weaker base of power than the Habsburgs had possessed, France would be able to dominate the German states and attain its rightful place as the master and arbiter of Europe. Whether a total victory in the WAS would have actually achieved these ends is another question.

It was my understanding the Austrian Netherlands being annexed by France was a foregone conclusion when the peace was signed, rather than something that was contested? I mean the French did conquer it and I thought everyone, even Britain, had resigned the territory to be given to France until Louis returned it.

Quite the opposite. When Lord Sandwich and Count Puisieulx met for preliminary negotiations at Liege in September 1747, Puisieulx threatened that if Britain did not return Louisbourg, France would keep the territory in the Austrian Netherlands which it had conquered - clearly demonstrating from the start of negotiations that France was not hell-bent on keeping it, but viewed it principally as a bargaining chip. During the final peace talks in 1748 the only question among French statesmen was how much land would be returned: Should France keep some sliver of the Austrian Netherlands as a prize for Saxe's phenomenal victories, or should they give it all back? Keeping the whole thing was totally out of the question, because that would have destroyed the peace talks - the allies were not willing to make peace unless France gave up its conquests, or at least most of its conquests.

What might you say would have happened after, if the French do nab the Southern Netherlands in any of the mid-18th century wars? Continue to try and place an ally on the Imperial throne? Or just keep chipping away at the principalities until the Princes unite against them?

It depends on the circumstances. The outcome of the WAS demonstrated that there was really no alternative to the Habsburg-dominated HRE, but if it had gone according to the French plan then France's post-1740s policy might have continued to revolve around consolidating their hegemony over the German states, now opposed principally by Prussia, Britain, probably Russia, and whatever remnant of the Habsburg states (Hungary?) still remains. On the other hand, if the Habsburgs survive but are shorn of the Netherlands in the peace deal, some sort of Bourbon-Habsburg rapprochement might still be possible given the threat posed by Prussia. If the British were less successful in America, France might have sought peace with Austria instead of Britain, as Maria Theresa had signaled that she was willing to give up at least some part of the Netherlands in exchange for a peace that would allow her to focus her full might against Prussia.

 

[Sardar]

It depends on the circumstances. The outcome of the WAS demonstrated that there was really no alternative to the Habsburg-dominated HRE, but if it had gone according to the French plan then France's post-1740s policy might have continued to revolve around consolidating their hegemony over the German states, now opposed principally by Prussia, Britain, probably Russia, and whatever remnant of the Habsburg states (Hungary?) still remains. On the other hand, if the Habsburgs survive but are shorn of the Netherlands in the peace deal, some sort of Bourbon-Habsburg rapprochement might still be possible given the threat posed by Prussia. If the British were less successful in America, France might have sought peace with Austria instead of Britain, as Maria Theresa had signaled that she was willing to give up at least some part of the Netherlands in exchange for a peace that would allow her to focus her full might against Prussia.

That's basically what I was thinking. Going through similar threads it would seem the principle, or at least major, obstacle to an Austro-French alliance would be removed by the French getting the Southern Netherlands. An alliance of the two against Prussia (who would help Britain protect Hanover) would seemingly be a win-win scenario.

I mean the Habsburgs didn't even want them anyway, so I don't think they would object if the French conquer them fair and square and don't need to trade them away. From there, annexing the electorate of Trier could be a possibility and maybe even the palatinate.

 

[Xavier]

I mean the Habsburgs didn't even want them anyway, so I don't think they would object if the French conquer them fair and square and don't need to trade them away. From there, annexing the electorate of Trier could be a possibility and maybe even the palatinate.

There is no precedent at this point for removing an Electorate (let alone 2) from existence by foreign conquest (nor, IIRC, for an electorate durably changing hands this way), so one should not expect the Habsburgs (and other German princes) to just shrug and parachute the orphaned electors somewhere East of the Rhine. Such a move would essentially threaten the balance of power inside the HRE, and thus be pretty much guaranteed to trigger a larger war one way or another. Hence me saying in my previous post that it would likely only be possible as part of an already existing larger war where the given Elector is unfortunate enough to be on the opposite side of the French. Even then, there would likely be some horse trading shenanigans at the negotiating table.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

On the other hand, if the Habsburgs survive but are shorn of the Netherlands in the peace deal, some sort of Bourbon-Habsburg rapprochement might still be possible given the threat posed by Prussia

Honestly id guess that with France so strengthened, and the ensuing explosion of hysteria among the smaller principalities, that Prussia stops trying to contest Habsburg management of the empire and the princes as a whole rally around the habsburgs as their protectors.

 

[Carp]

I agree that the conquest of an electorate (or really any significant imperial state) is a nonstarter; that guarantees a war with Austria, because the whole premise of the office of Holy Roman Emperor is that he protects the imperial princes. No matter how good the Austro-French relationship is, it wouldn't survive that sort of challenge to very existence of the empire. You either need some sort of succession war (the Bavarian Succession escalating, for instance) or a true revisionist shift like the French Revolution to make that happen.

Honestly id guess that with France so strengthened, and the ensuing explosion of hysteria among the smaller principalities, that Prussia stops trying to contest Habsburg management of the empire and the princes as a whole rally around the habsburgs as their protectors.

Depends on the circumstances of the cession. As I mentioned, there was a moment in the WAS where Maria Theresa actually offered France the Netherlands (or at least a good part of it) as the price of peace, on the assumption that peace with France would allow her to reclaim Silesia from Prussia, which she considered to be a more important territory. Such a deal might not cause much of a rallying effect unless the the Habsburgs actually do defeat Prussia and the princes are left with no other viable alternative within the empire.

 

[Sardar]

snip

snip

snip

So if I understand correctly, the only possible goals of a France which grabs the Southern Netherlands would be 1. Support a Wettin/Wittelsbach Emperor or 2. Make an Austrian alliance?

What could be done about Italy? Make help the Savoys grab Milan and formally reduce the HRE to just Germany?

 

[Carp]

What could be done about Italy? Make help the Savoys grab Milan and formally reduce the HRE to just Germany?

France wasn't particularly interested in Italy in this period; the Italian front in the WAS existed only because France was supporting the aims of Felipe V of Spain, who sought to reclaim the Italian territories that had been given to the Austrian Habsburgs as a result of the War of the Spanish Succession. When Felipe died in 1746, so did the influence of his wife Elisabeth Farnese and any real interest which Spain had in further Italian adventures. If the WAS had ended with a complete Austrian collapse, the Spaniards would presumably have claimed Milan for themselves, as Felipe and Elisabeth were very much against giving any territory to Sardinia.

The French attempted various schemes in the WAS to cajole Charles Emmanuel III into siding with them, but he probably never considered a Bourbon alliance very seriously. It was to CE's advantage that there should always be a tug-of-war in Italy between the Bourbons and Habsburgs, as Sardinian kings could play one side against the other to gradually expand their own territory and power. A total victory of either Austria or Spain was not in his interest, which is why he sided with the weaker party (Austria) in the WAS, yet did not support Austrian attempts to take Naples, which might in his view have made the Austrians unacceptably strong (as well as leaving his own territories vulnerable to counterattack from France). D'Argenson did at one point propose ceding the Milanese, or at least part of it, to the Savoyards to buy their allegiance, but CE didn't trust the Bourbons and preferred to maintain the balance of power in Italy. Unfortunately for him, the rapprochement between Austria, France, and Spain in the 1750s ruined any chance of continuing to profit from Habsburg-Bourbon rivalry, and Sardinia was unable to gain any more conquests until the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

In keeping with his predilection for crazy ideas, D'Argenson also mused about creating a sort of "italian league" notionally led by Turin that would break the Italian states off from imperial influence permanently, but I don't think anyone took this very seriously.

 

[Sardar]

France wasn't particularly interested in Italy in this period; the Italian front in the WAS existed only because France was supporting the aims of Felipe V of Spain, who sought to reclaim the Italian territories that had been given to the Austrian Habsburgs as a result of the War of the Spanish Succession. When Felipe died in 1746, so did the influence of his wife Elisabeth Farnese and any real interest which Spain had in further Italian adventures. If the WAS had ended with a complete Austrian collapse, the Spaniards would presumably have claimed Milan for themselves, as Felipe and Elisabeth were very much against giving any territory to Sardinia.

The French attempted various schemes in the WAS to cajole Charles Emmanuel III into siding with them, but he probably never considered a Bourbon alliance very seriously. It was to CE's advantage that there should always be a tug-of-war in Italy between the Bourbons and Habsburgs, as Sardinian kings could play one side against the other to gradually expand their own territory and power. A total victory of either Austria or Spain was not in his interest, which is why he sided with the weaker party (Austria) in the WAS, yet did not support Austrian attempts to take Naples, which might in his view have made the Austrians unacceptably strong (as well as leaving his own territories vulnerable to counterattack from France). D'Argenson did at one point propose ceding the Milanese, or at least part of it, to the Savoyards to buy their allegiance, but CE didn't trust the Bourbons and preferred to maintain the balance of power in Italy. Unfortunately for him, the rapprochement between Austria, France, and Spain in the 1750s ruined any chance of continuing to profit from Habsburg-Bourbon rivalry, and Sardinia was unable to gain any more conquests until the end of the Napoleonic Wars.

In keeping with his predilection for crazy ideas, D'Argenson also mused about creating a sort of "italian league" notionally led by Turin that would break the Italian states off from imperial influence permanently, but I don't think anyone took this very seriously.

Interesting. If, say, Marie-Adelaide of Savoy survived and was Queen of France or Regent after the death of Louis XIV, might CEIII have been more favorable to a Bourbon alliance, and France more interested in Italy? She was his sister after all. Of course Louis XV was his nephew anyway and that certainly didn't help.

Edit: Also, I just looked up on the previous thread of this subject where it was shown that Madras, rather than the Southern Netherlands, were traded for Louisbourg, according to this source.

 

[Carp]

Edit: Also, I just looked up on the previous thread of this subject where it was shown that Madras, rather than the Southern Netherlands, were traded for Louisbourg, according to this source.

In a sense, maybe, but this was all part of one treaty, and it's not reasonable to look at any particular part of it in isolation. It may be that, as a matter of diplomatic technicality, Madras was "exchanged for" Louisbourg in the final treaty, but the British would not have made that deal in a vacuum. Madras or not, the British were not going to return Louisbourg - or anything else - unless the French returned the Austrian Netherlands.

If Britain had failed to take Louisbourg (or France had managed to retake it in 1746 with the Duc d'Anville expedition), France would have had other options for peace. In 1745 Maria Theresa sued for peace with France, offering to give them parts of Flanders (specifically the districts of Ypres, Furnes, and Beaumont) and give Parma, Piacenza, and Pavia to Don Felipe. This was a pretty good deal, and certainly much better than the deal France eventually got in 1748. But the French refused for two reasons: First, d'Argenson was a colossal fool and insisted that Austria confirm Frederick's conquest of Silesia, which made no sense as retaking Silesia was the whole reason for MT's peace offer to France; and second, that while Austria could fulfill French war aims on the continent, Maria Theresa did not have the power to return Louisbourg, which had fallen to the British earlier that year. If the French had agreed to her terms in 1745, they would have had to evacuate the rest of the Austrian Netherlands, and that occupation was the biggest piece of leverage they had on Britain. It seems very unlikely to me that the British, absent a French occupation of the Austrian Netherlands, would have agreed to return the "Gibraltar of the West" in exchange for Madras. They weren't really equivalent.

If Louisbourg doesn't fall in 1745 and d'Argenson is replaced with someone who was actually competent, it's entirely possible that the Bourbon-Habsburg part of the war ends in 1745, Austria and Prussia fight a 1 vs. 1 duel for Silesia, and Britain is stuck without any continental allies. Perhaps they continue the naval war against the French and Spanish for while, but that war hadn't been going particularly well for them - despite arguably having the upper hand at sea, they had lost Madras and failed disastrously to make any real gains against the Spanish in America. If they fail at Louisbourg and the Austrians drop out of the war, there might be some pressure to cut their losses and make peace. Britain was willing to fight on for decades against Napoleon, but the WAS wasn't the same kind of ideological struggle.

 

[Sardar]

In a sense, maybe, but this was all part of one treaty, and it's not reasonable to look at any particular part of it in isolation. It may be that, as a matter of diplomatic technicality, Madras was "exchanged for" Louisbourg in the final treaty, but the British would not have made that deal in a vacuum. Madras or not, the British were not going to return Louisbourg - or anything else - unless the French returned the Austrian Netherlands.

Ah, ok.

If Britain had failed to take Louisbourg (or France had managed to retake it in 1746 with the Duc d'Anville expedition), France would have had other options for peace. In 1745 Maria Theresa sued for peace with France, offering to give them parts of Flanders (specifically the districts of Ypres, Furnes, and Beaumont) and give Parma, Piacenza, and Pavia to Don Felipe. This was a pretty good deal, and certainly much better than the deal France eventually got in 1748. But the French refused for two reasons: First, d'Argenson was a colossal fool and insisted that Austria confirm Frederick's conquest of Silesia, which made no sense as retaking Silesia was the whole reason for MT's peace offer to France; and second, that while Austria could fulfill French war aims on the continent, Maria Theresa did not have the power to return Louisbourg, which had fallen to the British earlier that year. If the French had agreed to her terms in 1745, they would have had to evacuate the rest of the Austrian Netherlands, and that occupation was the biggest piece of leverage they had on Britain. It seems very unlikely to me that the British, absent a French occupation of the Austrian Netherlands, would have agreed to return the "Gibraltar of the West" in exchange for Madras. They weren't really equivalent.

If Louisbourg doesn't fall in 1745 and d'Argenson is replaced with someone who was actually competent, it's entirely possible that the Bourbon-Habsburg part of the war ends in 1745, Austria and Prussia fight a 1 vs. 1 duel for Silesia, and Britain is stuck without any continental allies. Perhaps they continue the naval war against the French and Spanish for while, but that war hadn't been going particularly well for them - despite arguably having the upper hand at sea, they had lost Madras and failed disastrously to make any real gains against the Spanish in America. If they fail at Louisbourg and the Austrians drop out of the war, there might be some pressure to cut their losses and make peace. Britain was willing to fight on for decades against Napoleon, but the WAS wasn't the same kind of ideological struggle.

I see. In such a scenario might we see the Austrians take back Silesia? Or could we get the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg almost two decades earlier?

Back to Italy; may CEIII feel better about a Bourbon alliance to grab Milan and Mantua if his sister is ruling in France? Or at least is Queen with a surviving Duke of Burgundy who goes on to be TTL's Louis XV? Of course, the Wars preceding the WAS are butterflied if he and his wife survive, but a general conflict in the same vein seems likely considering all the wars of the 18th century.

 

[Carp]

I see. In such a scenario might we see the Austrians take back Silesia? Or could we get the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg almost two decades earlier?

MT seemed to think she had a shot at putting Frederick in his place. Technically it wouldn't be a 1 vs 1, either - the Saxons were willing to join in against Frederick, and at that moment the Austrians were also in negotiations for Russia to join the war. If all this had gone according to plan, you might end up with something like the Seven Years' War more than a decade early, with Frederick facing an Austro-Russo-Saxon alliance (but without any British money to back him up). But it all fell apart at the last minute: Frederick learned of the allies' plan (it was leaked to him by the Swedish minister in Saxony) and promptly invaded Saxony, while the Russians abruptly backed out of the deal for reasons that have never really been clear to me, and the peace deal with France failed to materialize because of d'Argenson's opposition. So in a sense, Frederick did get a "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" in 1745. He was a lucky bastard.

Back to Italy; may CEIII feel better about a Bourbon alliance to grab Milan and Mantua if his sister is ruling in France? Or at least is Queen with a surviving Duke of Burgundy who goes on to be TTL's Louis XV? Of course, the Wars preceding the WAS are butterflied if he and his wife survive, but a general conflict in the same vein seems likely considering all the wars of the 18th century.

Having a sister in Versailles doesn't really change the strategic logic of Turin's position, and CE was too smart of a guy to abandon that logic because of mere familial ties. But as you suggest, if Louis XV is replaced by the Duke of Burgundy (or anyone else), you have to ask whether the WAS might have taken a different course, or indeed would have happened at all. France marching in to enthrone the Wittelsbachs was not a foregone conclusion, and happened largely on the initiative of Belle-Isle, who might or might not be in the same position if a different monarch rules in Versailles.

The fundamental problem in Italy is that CE is probably only going to side with the Bourbons if the Austrians totally collapse, but if the Austrians collapse then the Bourbons don't need Sardinia and have no reason to give CE anything. I suppose you could make MT be even more stubborn and refuse to offer CE anything for his support, but that seems hard to believe given how desperate Austria was at the time. She surely knew that without Sardinian help, Austria would probably be driven from Italy entirely.