What if Empress Elizabeth lives for another year
- Thread starter Musketeer513
- Start date
Allies are temporary. Interests are permanent. It is not in Russian interest for Austria to have such a large core territory in the HRE.
I think you are probably right, but Britain will still go to war over it, taking as many colonies as possible. Ejecting them from St Pierre and Miquelon would impair their naval ability substantially and St Dominique would hurt their finances a lot. The British government would collapse if they did nothing, especially after Corsica.
The Dutch policy here is very interesting. With the SN border forts in French hands, the French can overrun the Republic at any moment. Do they resist that or simply accept being under the French thumb, potentially next on the list for annexation?
That's about 504,000£/year. Not the highest subsidy, but still significant. About 8% of the Habsburg monarchy's expenditures.
And why exactly? Russia at the moment is interested in the still existing Poland and the Ottomans. If it can get Austria to focus on HRE instead of concentrating on Poland and the Otttomans they end up winning even more than OTL. So I dont see them making much of a problem of German issues. And France wont be happy about the bavarian exchange however I dont think it will stop it. A wittelsbach Netherland will be a french puppet IMO and everyone knows that. The biggest issue was not Austria getting Bavaria and concentrating its territories but Austria getting rid of its weak point that was supposed to force it into conflicts with France and to protect the Netherlands. Getting rid of the Austrian Netherlands - even without getting anything - would increase Austrian diplomatic option and freedom considerably.
I never argued Britain would go to war over a Wittelsbach Netherlands. I said it would over a direct French annexation.
On Russia, Prussia is now out the way so Russian domination over Poland is guaranteed. The one thing that could challenge that is a consolidated Habsburg Germany, which is why Russia could well oppose it. In terms of the Ottomans, the proposed Anglo-Russian alliance fell apart over (1) peace time subsidies and (2) British naval support against the Ottomans. I imagine Britain would concede both to stop the French getting the "outer works" of the defence of the isles.
It will be unwise for France not to annex the Austrian Netherlands.The last war proved it.Louis originally had the same line of thought in the War of the Austrian Netherlands that not annexing the AN will prevent war with Britain.That backfired incredibly.
In this case,all the opponents to that are either defeated or too weak to fight(apart from Britain),but Britain’s ability to fight a land war on her on is lacking.
These are two separate issues. First at the end of the 7 years war France could have gotten the Austrian Netherlands if they dont decrease both their military and monetary contribution significantly which resulted in the change of the original treaty condition accepted by Austria, that they will receive AN at the end of the war. POD is however after this so the only thing I see France receiving in an Austrian victory is small territorial compensations at most.
THe other - the bavarian exchange plan is another issue altogether. Austria swapping the AN for Bavaria. In this case there is no possibility for France to receive AN however a Wittelsbach Belgium would be most likely a french puppet. Maybe a stipulation can be made in case of the Wittelsbach die out the territory goes to France but thats the most of it.
The problem is that you are overestimating Russia. OTL they had to evacuate Poland for a time when they were fighting the Ottomans and the Swedish. They also were pretty slow to beat the Ottomans even with Austria as an ally. Poland is on its death bad but its yet to die and the Ottomans are far from finished. Russia at the beginning isnt even established in the north shores of the black sea. Its huge and has huge potential but it is really far from Germany to care so much about Bavaria as to go to war with its ally Austria because of it. Also ITTL they dont have Prussia to play against Austria. And to be honest looking at Catherine's foreign policy I think se is much more interested in expanding Russia than in stopping Austria in expanding in a direction that doesnt conflict with her own plans. The most I can see is she asking for some territorial compensation of her own most likely in Poland.
And the british might not like it but they have no allies left on the continent.
BTW: How do you thing the partition of Poland would go in the absence of Prussia? Would it happen at all?
The second Versailles treaty (1757) had the ANL going to the Duke of Parma, as a french client state, not directly to the French state. The third Versailles treaty (1758), which lowered the subsidy paid to Austria, allowed the Duke of Parma to keep Parma even if he did inherit Two Sicilies. With the chosen PoD, Charles III of Spain has already done his trick with the Sicilian Succession. So, by strict application of treaties, France - or France's clients - gets nothing. Not diplomaticaly acceptable. Either it would be a town or two in the ANL (Chimay, I think, was discussed at a time), or an Italian principality. A quick trick could be the engagement of the Este-Modena heiress to Parma's son (she was engaged to an Archduke, but she did end up marrying his brother OTL), a more costly would be Mantova. I think a Parma-Tuscany swap (not very likely) would be the higher possible compensation.
The only Wittelsbach going for the exchange was Karl Theodor (who ITTL got also Julich and Berg by siding with the Austro-French). He was childless and separated from his wife at the time of the negociations (1777). I think no Great power could accept a reversion clause, as it would be too likely Louis XVI would eventually inherit the (B)NL.
You are right however he had another Wittelsbach heir from a different brach who also had to agree to the exchange because of this. Regarding the reversion clause Austria can accept it as well as France and as long as those two agree who can oppose them in western Europe without Prussia.
Right. Got confused with the many wars we are discussing. Nonetheless, the effect of taking SPM (or rather, interrupting the Great Banks fishing campaigns) would take some time.
Who is talking about the Bavarian Succession? I was referring to France receiving it at the end of the 7YW
When did they "evacuate" Poland?
Russia is not far away from Germany. They now own East Prussia. Also, if Peter doesn't get removed (and his disastrous 7YW play was a big part of that), he is active in Holstein.
The only partitions of Poland I see in this timeline are breakups into smaller states to make it easier for Russia to gradually swallow without causing a reaction.
I believe the understanding was East Prussia would be given to Poland-Lithuania in exchange for Courland which was still under the PLC's suzerainty. Russia had around this time begun to dominate Courland but it wasn't total by having the PLC surrender Courland in exchange for Prussia, Russia would have more freedom with regards to Courland and it expands their PLC while not necessarily strengthening it.
I have read this was initially considered but the Tsarina went cold on it by the time of her death. I can understand why: with Prussia gone, Russia will likely be able to annex Courland anyway.
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
IMO would not happen.
AFAIK Prussia was the driving force for it.
Russia had the PLC as a satellite since 1717 ... Austria was not too keen either, I think ...