Idk how I missed that lol.
Here's the revised one.
The Goose Stepping Redcoats - The History of the House of Brandenburg in Britain
- Thread starter Georg von Frundsberg
- Start date
Here's the revised one.
I get what you mean here. The succession to the Electorate of Hanover legally depended on the Holy Roman Emperor and the Imperial Diet. Yet I have doubts about whether the Emperor was willing to agree to a partition. In OTL Charles VI had promised him Julich-Berg in 1726 but he broke the pledge. So if the Emperor had ignored Frederick William's claims to Hanover then he would have had to rely on the British parliament and her wife Queen Sophia to side with him. Prussia could not challenge Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel's claim alone since the latter was backed by the Emperor (since Charles VI's father-in-law was the prince of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel). In short, yes, Walpole has no authority to decide on the question of the Hanoverian succession but support and approval from the parliament would boost the chances of a successful claim. Besides, if he could convince his father-in-law George I to make a will to pass the Electorate to him then his claim could be much stronger and harder for the Emperor to reject (consistency for the sake of the Pragmatic Sanction). (In OTL when Charles VI eventually awarded Julich-Berg to the Palatinate-Sulzbachs, Frederick William sought support from Britain and France and I remember somewhere in the 1725 Treaty of Hanover mentioned that the two countries agreed to support Prussia's claim)
As for the partition, I have two ideas: Prussia would of course receive Saxe-Lauenburg and Bremen-Verden at minimum. My option 1 is to be guaranteed Julich-Berg in lieu of the Electorate. Julich-Berg is wealthier but far away from Berlin. It's proximity to the French border made it harder to defend. So option 2 would be like you have said getting Luneburg, poorer but easier to defend and create a single, continuous territory from Pomerania to the North Sea.
furthermore with Great Britain ending up in PU with Prussia we also have a greater British involvement in HRE affairs ( parliamentarians like it or not ) given that historically Prussia was played with Saxony ( before the conversion of Augustus ) and with Hanover ( but only after they became kings of Great Britain), the role of head of the corpus evangelicum in the empire, here obviously Prussia will be the undisputed first Protestant Power in the empire, I wonder if this change will lead the Anglo-Prussians to want to actively interfere with the imperial diet in their favor ( I believe that the remote possibility cannot be excluded that the idea of uniting all the Protestants of the Reich in a single kingdom could be developed ( except those who live in electoral territories such as Saxony or Palatinate )
I agree with you, but I wouldn't be so sure about Charles VI, he was certainly the worst Habsburg emperor, but he's not crazy enough to make London an enemy, especially if this means having Prussia as an opponent, he knows it very well Prussia can give up to Julich and Cleve if its rights to Upper Silesia were recognised, but I doubt Vienna would agree to cede the territory, so accepting a peaceful partition of the former Hanoverian territory together with the expropriated possessions from Sweden will be regarded as a guarantee of support for the pragmatic sanction ( although depending on the Pod used, Maria Theresa could end up with an older brother alive )
perhaps Prussia is given a share in the Ostend Company ( it would be nice for the company to survive, although as an idea this is highly unlikely given British hostility )
Last edited:
The British parliament at the time harboured an aversion to meddling in Continental affairs, but King Frederick would certainly be interested in forming an earlier Fürstenbund, especially given his ATL liberal philosophy and the belief that he was the 'protector of liberty in the Empire'. I guess the parliament's response would be "Do what you like but please don't start a war." (I doubt Britain would welcome any political projects that would increase imperial authority and make Austria too powerful, like annexing Bavaria -- preserving the status quo. This is when they would back Prussia)
That's what I've planned for the 19th Century...
Last edited:
Might the fact that Prussia has a much stronger army, and also not being so close to France, give the British parliament a little bit more confidence in "not having to constantly bail them out, even when we really don't want to"?
very interesting, perhaps this pushes the Habsburgs to reform the empire, will we see a reduced form of electors ?, perhaps by confession : a Lutheran (Prussia) a Calvinist (Palatinate?) an ecclesiastical elector and finally Saxony and Bohemia
I see it difficult for Prussia to create a Furstenbund ( given that Otl was George III and Hesse ( then followed by the other minor princes ) had to create the Prussian-Habsburg anti-expansion league in perspective (a sort of ante literam Third Germany )
as far as parliament is concerned and not tolerating interference in the monarch's foreign policy, the sovereign can circumvent all this by using his other royal title ( i.e. the Prussian one, a bit like Otl the Hanoverians did in foreign policy matters, so that they cannot be controlled by parliament )
Last edited:
Definitely, Prussia in this TL would not be invading Silesia so they remained on good terms with the Emperor/Empress. As long as Prussia also got along with Russia then the British government would have fewer concerns. (Poland can just be ignored here)
By the way, a teaser here: London would get an additional tourist attraction in TL: The Amber Room (II)
Last edited:
I think Frederick may well fuck off to Prussia and launch wars of conquest there than stay in Britain where he had far less power. It probably feels nicer to be an absolute monarch.Parliament may well be a pain in the arse to deal with.
Last edited:
If that's the case then Frederick may very well abdicate the British throne in favour of his younger brothers, he could not have it both ways.
There’s precedence of William III leaving Britain to rule his other realms periodically.Brits might not turn out entirely displeased to see the king fuck off since they have more power then. The king being there to dog fight them for power is a far worse outcome, and I really can’t see Frederick being content to be a do nothing king.
Last edited:
A interesting aspect will be religion, while Brandenburg-Prussia was Lutheran, the Hohenzollern family (in Prussia [1]) was Calvinist. Frederick will now have to deal with an Anglican England and a Reformed Scotland.
[1] The Franconia branches were Lutherans and the Swabian branch Catholic.
[1] The Franconia branches were Lutherans and the Swabian branch Catholic.
Honestly Frederick William I (the Soldier King) could after the death of his father-in-law look around and ally with other to divide Hanover. If as example he brought Denmark-Norway abroad by offering them Bremen-Verden and Saxe-Lauenburg, the emperor would be in pretty big trouble in how he would be able to stop Frederick William from annexing all of Hanover, it would pretty much demand French or British intervention to stop him, through the Emperor could also bluff by trying to support Sweden and Saxony against Prussia and Denmark, but if end up with war between those power it will become very obvious that the balance of power in Northern Europe have been badly disrupted after the Spanish Succession War and the Great Northern War, and the great power will pretty much have to intervene to stop Denmark and Prussia from eating Sweden and Saxony alive.
As for the Hannover question, I really don't see Brandenburg-Britain getting Luneburg in any deal whatsoever. Luneburg was too important to the Welfs economically, strategically, and symbolically for them to give it away to someone without a real legal claim to it. For starters before the acquisition of Bremen-Verden (and after its hypothetical loss) Luneburg was the only part of their territories that provided them direct access to the Elbe (and therefore the sea), its loss would make them land-locked. Secondly it formed the bulk of the Welf lands, it was by far the largest subdivision representing nearly half of their territories by land area. It also provided them with what little "consistency" their lands had. Without Luneburg the remaining Welf domains would form a thin strip of lands spread out over Lower Saxony with some exclaves here and there. Even if we're being generous and only take away the northern half immediately around the city of Luneburg itself that'd still be a major territorial loss. And finally Luneburg was a core territory of the House of Welf, going all the way back to when they first became rulers in Lower Saxony. Symbolically handing over Luneburg would be equivalent to some Spanish monarch handing over the original Castilian lands around Burgos.
There's also the matter of the implications such a deal would have for the other Germans, the perception and reaction from other German princes cannot be neglected. It would put inheritance rights in question, it would leave the entire Elbe north of Magdeburg under Prussian domination, a bunch of German princes (and, in fact, several European monarchs) will feel threatened by this sudden shift in the power balance, etc.
There's also the matter of the implications such a deal would have for the other Germans, the perception and reaction from other German princes cannot be neglected. It would put inheritance rights in question, it would leave the entire Elbe north of Magdeburg under Prussian domination, a bunch of German princes (and, in fact, several European monarchs) will feel threatened by this sudden shift in the power balance, etc.
Frederick William I as far as I know was not a bellicose leader. Even though he had amassed an impressive army he was reluctant to actually wage war. If Prussia attacked Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel to seize Hanover then Austria would attack. Charles VI would support his father-in-law, Louis Rudolph of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel. You are right that a Prussian Hanover would disrupt the balance of power within the Empire so it would be unacceptable. It would be suicidal to fight against Austria alone without the backing of a great power like Britain or France. Frederick II secured support from France before the invasion of Silesia in OTL. Therefore I think that Frederick William would try to resolve this diplomatically without resorting to war.
I can't see Charles VI being very generous to Prussia actually, Luneburg is certainly too large so I think it possible that he offered Julich-Berg in exchange for the rest of Hanover sans Bremen-Verden and Saxe-Lauenburg (that is, with the support of Britain and France). Julich-Berg is located along the Rhine and quite close to the French border so Charles VI could also invite more Prussian troops to help guard the border by doing so.
But the parliament could not tolerate a King who kept on dragging Britain into unnecessary wars because he was a glory-seeker. They would either persuade him to step down or worse invite the Stuarts back in an alt-1745 uprising, at least they were native British kings and had no continental possessions to care about.
I plan to have the Emden Company (under a different name since in this timeline the Dutch, instead of Prussia, would get East Frisia) to succeed. The Emden Company theoretically had a good customer base: if they played their cards right they could dominate the Baltic Trade -- Ports like Stettin and Königsberg, and trade with Austria and Bohemia along the Elbe). Being the 'King's company' also makes it harder for the parliament to close it down like Ostend.
Last edited:
That would depend on how he sells the war to Britain and how successful he is personally at those wars. People are still suckers for ‘heroic’ kings.
After some deliberation, I have planned an outline for the diplomatic evolution in the early to mid-18th century in this alternate TL. Here is a note I wrote:
General overview of the diplomatic development of the Anglo-Prussian Union:
There are three general, possible situations emerging in 18th Century Europe, featuring the three strongest European powers: France, Britain and Austria.
1). Britain + France vs Austria
2). Britain + Austria vs France
3). France + Austria vs Britain
In a hypothetical Anglo-French alliance, Prussia would be a useful asset since it could threaten Silesia and Bohemia, which were Austrian hinterlands. France would not see an Anglo-Prussian union as a threat since Berlin was far away. An Anglo-Prussian is different from, let's say, an Austro-Spanish Union.
Austria distrusted Prussia but it could be a useful ally. A rival is different from an enemy and since Prussia did not conquer Silesia an alliance with Britain-Prussia was possible.
A Franco-Austrian alliance could only make sense if France saw Britain as its primary enemy instead of Austria, and Austria sensed Prussia as a threat that must be met by force. In this case, an Austrian attack on Prussia, in theory, could be a leverage against Britain for France, like Hanover in the OTL Seven Years' War.
So which scenario is more likely in an alternate timeline? A stronger Anglo-Austrian alliance. In OTL, Britain was allied with France in the 1720s, but by the 1730s, both sides' intentions were diverging. The goal of this alliance, for Britain, was to preserve the post-Utrecht status quo and the balance of power. France, however, would like to transform it into an aggressive military alliance against Austria. The War of the Polish Succession would be the breaking point as Britain would most likely remain neutral. After that, Britain would seek an alliance with Austria, a few years later than OTL.
Some suggested that Austria would intervene militarily (perhaps with France) to prevent the union of British and Prussian crowns, I argue that this outcome is unlikely, since not only would the Emperor antagonise Britain, but force a lawful Elector to abdicate merely because he was a king of another country would be unacceptable in the eyes of many Imperial nobles. This would firstly scare the Wettins who were the Kings of Poland. Meddling in the Elector's own affairs was also a taboo post-Westphalia and could rally the other electors, dukes and princes against the Emperor, which France could exploit. To take action against an Elector there must be sound reasons like treason (see Bavaria in the War of the Spanish Succession). Unless Prussia attacked Austria like OTL then the Emperor would most likely try their best to woo Britain-Prussia to their side. (Or unless a war broke out between an Anglo-French alliance and Austria, then all bets are off)
If for some reason the Anglo-French Union survived, Austria could strengthen its ties with Poland and Denmark, with the latter being offered Bremen-Verden and Pomerania (a medieval claim) as a counterweight to Prussia. Yet I doubt whether Denmark would fall for it since they would not want the British fleet to show up in Copenhagen again.
Does this make any sense? I welcome your input here.
By the way, does anyone know how to centre an image on this website? Every time I tried to upload a photo it always moved to the right or the left, even when I have clicked 'align centre'.
General overview of the diplomatic development of the Anglo-Prussian Union:
There are three general, possible situations emerging in 18th Century Europe, featuring the three strongest European powers: France, Britain and Austria.
1). Britain + France vs Austria
2). Britain + Austria vs France
3). France + Austria vs Britain
In a hypothetical Anglo-French alliance, Prussia would be a useful asset since it could threaten Silesia and Bohemia, which were Austrian hinterlands. France would not see an Anglo-Prussian union as a threat since Berlin was far away. An Anglo-Prussian is different from, let's say, an Austro-Spanish Union.
Austria distrusted Prussia but it could be a useful ally. A rival is different from an enemy and since Prussia did not conquer Silesia an alliance with Britain-Prussia was possible.
A Franco-Austrian alliance could only make sense if France saw Britain as its primary enemy instead of Austria, and Austria sensed Prussia as a threat that must be met by force. In this case, an Austrian attack on Prussia, in theory, could be a leverage against Britain for France, like Hanover in the OTL Seven Years' War.
So which scenario is more likely in an alternate timeline? A stronger Anglo-Austrian alliance. In OTL, Britain was allied with France in the 1720s, but by the 1730s, both sides' intentions were diverging. The goal of this alliance, for Britain, was to preserve the post-Utrecht status quo and the balance of power. France, however, would like to transform it into an aggressive military alliance against Austria. The War of the Polish Succession would be the breaking point as Britain would most likely remain neutral. After that, Britain would seek an alliance with Austria, a few years later than OTL.
Some suggested that Austria would intervene militarily (perhaps with France) to prevent the union of British and Prussian crowns, I argue that this outcome is unlikely, since not only would the Emperor antagonise Britain, but force a lawful Elector to abdicate merely because he was a king of another country would be unacceptable in the eyes of many Imperial nobles. This would firstly scare the Wettins who were the Kings of Poland. Meddling in the Elector's own affairs was also a taboo post-Westphalia and could rally the other electors, dukes and princes against the Emperor, which France could exploit. To take action against an Elector there must be sound reasons like treason (see Bavaria in the War of the Spanish Succession). Unless Prussia attacked Austria like OTL then the Emperor would most likely try their best to woo Britain-Prussia to their side. (Or unless a war broke out between an Anglo-French alliance and Austria, then all bets are off)
If for some reason the Anglo-French Union survived, Austria could strengthen its ties with Poland and Denmark, with the latter being offered Bremen-Verden and Pomerania (a medieval claim) as a counterweight to Prussia. Yet I doubt whether Denmark would fall for it since they would not want the British fleet to show up in Copenhagen again.
Does this make any sense? I welcome your input here.
But Prussia in this TL would be less expansionistic since Britain would make sure that Prussia would not start any foolish wars. Other dukes and electors would be more happy to ally with Prussia without the invasion of Silesia in their memory.
By the way, does anyone know how to centre an image on this website? Every time I tried to upload a photo it always moved to the right or the left, even when I have clicked 'align centre'.
Last edited:
The thing is, if Frederick is really very British that could put him at odds with the Prussian Junker nobility who are very conservative. Whoever Britain and Prussia end up at odds with, isn't going to just ally with someone else and call it that. They could also prey upon the internal division between Prussia and Frederick. Be that resistance to reforms, or even up to offering a relative the crown instead. The house of Brandenburg has marriage links with a number of Protestant powers. Frederick OTL made a lot of reforms, but he had the base of support of being THE Prussian King. In this ATL he will be somewhat foreign and suspect, as are his ideas.
Russia is still on the upswing in this period, but they had a fair amount of affinity for the Prussians and will get entangled in alliance networks at some point. The East Prussians might prefer a Russia loose domination much like the Baltic Germans affinity for the Russian Tsar, rather than a British Liberal.
Austria is the Emperor and so could have room to mess with Brandenburg Prussia, through the diplomatic and internal organs of the Empire.
A more trade-focused Prussia would also butt up against the leftover Hansa, the Netherlands and the Danes.
And Prussia subject to Britain, likely can't participate in the carving up of Poland. Nor can it do a lot of things that Frederick did, like suddenly overrunning lesser powers, out of the blue. Or if he still does, then Britain could leave him high and dry.
Russia is still on the upswing in this period, but they had a fair amount of affinity for the Prussians and will get entangled in alliance networks at some point. The East Prussians might prefer a Russia loose domination much like the Baltic Germans affinity for the Russian Tsar, rather than a British Liberal.
Austria is the Emperor and so could have room to mess with Brandenburg Prussia, through the diplomatic and internal organs of the Empire.
A more trade-focused Prussia would also butt up against the leftover Hansa, the Netherlands and the Danes.
And Prussia subject to Britain, likely can't participate in the carving up of Poland. Nor can it do a lot of things that Frederick did, like suddenly overrunning lesser powers, out of the blue. Or if he still does, then Britain could leave him high and dry.
Last edited:
Not to mention how his father Frederick Willian would react once he found out what he had learnt in Britain...
But it depends on what you mean by 'liberal', I guess the Junkers would be fine with a somewhat liberal King as long as Frederick did not go after their serfs and privileges. After all, Frederick was not a 'Napoleonic Liberal'. When I say liberal I mostly mean 'growing' a mercantile burgher middle class in cities like Berlin or Stettin as Prussia became more commercially oriented. It will take at least three to four decades for this nascent social class to challenge the old Junker-dominated military bureaucracy.
I am also thinking about Frederick being a less absolutist king in Prussia and delegating some power to his Junkers (I do not think that Frederick and his descendants could neglect Prussia as George III does to Hanover, and it would be impractical for him to be an absolutist King while spending more than half of his reign in Britain, so some form of delegation was necessary anyway). After all, Britain in the 18th century was in no way a popular democracy by modern-day standards and the aristocracy held immense powers. Frederick could implement his liberal reforms and keep the nobles happy. Drastic political changes would take place once the urban burgher rose in prominence, which ironically would be around the 1780s (40 years after Frederick became King -- Things will get very, I mean very interesting if some kind of a revolution happens in France like OTL), perhaps even after his death. The Junkers would be contented to have a say in the management of the Generalkriegskommissariat.
So nope, Frederick would not be elevating commoners as military commanders. But his grandson, maybe...
The only thing I am still struggling to think about is British North America...
Last edited: