u/Affectionate_Big9416

WHAT IF SPAIN WON THE WAR OF THE QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE?

CONTEXT

Spain began the 18th century,with a rather underwhelming victory in the War of Spanish Succession,if you can even call it a victory at all. Spain lost all of its European territory overseas,suffered a massive rebellion in Catalonia,and wasnt allowed to inherit the throne of France.
But,that didnt mean that Philip would just sit and do nothing.
To give Philip credit,in the 4 years of peace (yes,he stayed at peace for a whopping 4 years),he managed to pass a very big reform-the Nueva Planta Decrees.He also tried to centralise Spain,just like France,and in 1718,came his biggest war yet.
While Austria was busy doing Austrian stuff in the Balkans (fighting the Ottomans),the Spanish invaded Sardinia.This alerted the (then) Triple Alliance between the Orleanist Regency of France,the Dutch Republic and England. Especially England,whom wanted to protect their holdings which they gained in the previous war (Minorica and Gibraltar).And in the biggest screw up of his career,seeing that no one cared when he invaded Sardinia,Spain invaded Sicily (then governed by Savoy).
Then they were intercepted by a Triple Alliance fleet,before they were declared war on.
The Triple Alliance sent their ultimatum when Spain did get onto Sicily,demanding that the Spanish king left,but to quote Giulio Alberoni:
"Rather than consent to them,he would die fighting,sword in hand."
Thus,the War of the Quadruple Alliance began,and,unsurprisingly,without any allies,Spain lost.
However,they still had a pretty impressive run,at least in Italy.

So what if that changed?
What if despite all the odds,Spain won?

BEYOND THE PILLARS OF HERCULES

Spain had two concrete goals in the war:

The first was rather simple,prove that Spain is still a power to be feared,in sea and land.
The second was also rather simple,restore the overseas possessions in Italy.
And the last was rather tough,convince the European powers to just accept Spain being the most powerful nation in the Western Mediteranian.

As most European peacedeals at the time,werent full blown capitulations (Like the 7 Years War),or complete but negotiated victories (like the Great Northern War),the european powers mostly used the pragmatic method to do peacedeals.
Aka,if one power gets something,the losing power should also be compensated.Hell,at times the ones to lose land,were the powers to win in the first place (like Savoy in the Quadruple Alliance War).

So Spain would likely,not get everything they wanted,simply because,they cant enforce it.
Most wars at the time,were quick,lightning campaigns,which were mostly decided in the early game,and then when it rattled into a slog,most would just accept fighting isnt worth it anymore,and just leave.

The best chance that has at winning this war,is before Austria enters.
If they manage to quickly defeat France,Savoy,the Dutch and the English,it would be over.

And there is one thing,which could make that victory happen.

THE BATTLE OF CAPE PASSARO

This was it,the one engagement which not only technically began the war,but ended it before it even began in the first place.
The British victory at Cape Passaro,wasnt just a decisive victory,it was a proof that Spain,wasnt able to not only supply their campaign in Sicily,but also fight against the British in the mediteranian.
And all of it was caused,by Spain being simply outnumbered.
Thats it.
Spain simply,lacked the numbers to get into an effective defense.
Britain also,didnt declare war at that point,so Spain didnt expect an attack either.
And all of that couldve been solved,if Spain,just sent a bit more ships to the area.

And it made sense.
Cape Passaro,was strategically important.If Spain ever had the idea to reclaim Naples,they would have to control Cape Passaro and the Straight of Messina,without it,any further campaign would prove disastrous.
So if they just,sent more naval vessels,which they could,the Spanish,could potentially manage to gaina victory at Cape Passaro.
This would destroy any morale of the British to do anything in the Mediteranian.
It would be a trauma remembered for centuries,a battle fundamentally changing the whole strategy of Britain as a whole.
Because without this,England,doesnt really have anything in the mediteranian.
Minorica and Gibraltar were small. Like,very small.They would fall,likely without even a bullet fired.
Gibraltar wasnt the fortified rock of the Mediteranian yet,it was a small trade outpost,similar in nature,funnily enough,to Spanish possessions of Ceuta and Meilla.
So yes,if the Battle is won by the Spanish,the whole tactic of the British changes,at least for a point.
Would this prevent the war entirely?
No,not likely.
In fact it would make it happen faster.
But making it happen faster,is actually to Britains loss.

THE STUARTIST COLLUMN

The Jacobites,were really something.
A movement of conservative restorationists,rallying behind a King with a name which is too long to put in this place.
And Britain beginning the war 4 months earlier than they did historically,would be an absolute game changer for the Jacobites.
Because Britain,losing the Mediteranian,would actually boost the popularity of the Jacobites,massivly.
They were already exiled from France in 1716,however now,they had a new base.
This new Uprising of 1718,would be similar in nature to 1715.
Angry clans in Scotland,rallying behind the Stuartist banner to end the Hannoverian monarchy.
Yet there is a catch.The Stuartists..Had little to no support either internationally,nor interanally after 1715.
Let me just say this,there was a reason why their uprising failed in 1719.
Yet even then,an uprising happening in Great Britain,would actually manage to distract the British this time around since they would be much more focused on opening a front with Spain in the first place.
Would that mean that James Stuart add 4 more names would become King?
No,probably not,but it would serve as the fundamental distraction to stop the British from winning decisivly.

THE ORLEANIST QUESTION

The House of Orleans,not yet claimant to the throne of France,yet still a major French noble house,was at that point,the Regents of France because the infamous king,Louis XV,was underage.
Yet with Britain losing Cape Pasaro,and with Spain being under the Bourbons anyway,what would be the benefit of France joining a war against Bourbonist Spain,which they themselves established.
In our timeline,it was to protect the order of the Mediteranian,to aid British ships,and normalise relations with other great powers.
Yet with a loss in Cape Passaro,and Britain not only in a Civil War but also losing almost all prestige in the Mediteranian,what would be the purpouse of joining the war?
Aiding Savoy?They didnt really have to.

And even if they joined,the only front they could realistically open,would be in the West Mediteranian,which was proven to be a Spanish lake,and the Pyrhenees.
We sure are enthusiastic to fight in the Mountains.
When Spanish army isnt nearly as exhausted..Well,literally anywhere else.
Quite simply,the French have zero obligation or reason to join,so the most likely thing would be just them saying "Who asked?" and backing down.

THE HABSBURG SAY

The Habsburgs,by 1718,were still mostly just doing their own war-the Austro-Turkish War (1716–1718).
That is a whole diffrent conflict which deserves its own scenario,but if being short,when Austria finished that and interviened into the War of the Quadruple Alliance,they proved decisive in driving out Spain from Sicily.
Yet here,lets say,that Prince Eugene stalls at Belgrade,that the Siege doesnt go as planned,and that Austria doesnt achieve that decisive "Aha!" type moment they needed to end the war.
The war would stall,the Austrians would have to reconsider,theyd have to leave Serbia,refocus on other fronts,like Moldavia (which they failed to capture) and Wallachia.
The war is prolonged maybe even up until 1720.
And with Austria distracted,France not being able to join,England too overstretched,and the Dutch and Savoians just...being there,the war wouldnt last long.
Its likely that after the Battle of Cape St Vincent,the Spanish and British just sue for peace.

"The first time since the romans, a single, united polity."

Spain achieves most of its goals that it wanted from the war.
They now have Sardinia and Sicily,as well as restoring control over Minorica and Gibraltar.
The things they lose is mostly things in the Americas (as pointed out in the picture).
They do fail to get Naples...For now..But for the most part,Spain is back in one piece like it was before the war of Spanish Succession.
The popularity of Philip and the Bourbons skyrockets,they were already quite popular in Europe anyway because of their impressive reform,but managing such a decisive victory would also be absolutely magnificent for most Spaniards,and not only.

As for England,this would be terrifying.
The war proved that indeed,Britania does NOT rule the waves.
The war showed that resentment to the Hanoverian monarchy,still exists.
And the war showed,that long term world wide power projections was probably not going to happen.
Whilst getting at least something out of the war was good,domestically this would be basically a new dark age.

British focus against the Bourbons is basically cranked up to a hundred and more,and the British policy toward the Great Northern War,turns far more interventionist,as the monarchy becomes desperate to find a war for legitimacy.

As for Austria,this wouldnt be a big deal.
Their primary Italian holdings of Milan and Naples were (for now) still theirs,and Sardinia was already far away and tough to govern so they wouldnt care much.
The country which would care however,would be Savoy.
Their entire focus was to gain a new title to finally raise their level up to a Kingdom (which they did in that war,by gaining Sardinia,to get themselves the title King of Sardinia).Yet they would be blocked from it,and not only that,their other main overseas posession of Sicily would ALSO be lost.
Savoy would probably leave as the ultimate loser,losing their most prised posession,their most trusted allies and their dignity.

CONCLUSION

This scenario is basically a Spanish wet dream,everything and anythign they couldve imagined,is theirs.
Is it realistic?
Idk,probably not,im not spanish.
Was it fun to make?Hell yeah.

"Hey,what about the Polish War of Succession?"

Well,thats a great question...
Which I wont answer.

It's been a while since I posted something (un)funny,why not try something now then.

WHAT IF TWO SICILIES KEPT THE 1848 CONSTITUTION/LIBERALISED?

CONTEXT

The Mezzogiorno,or Southern Italy,unlike its Northern counterparts,for the past few centuries since the Italian Wars of the 1500s,been governed very diffrently than for example Turin or Florence,since instead of being a sprawling middle power developing in its own right,for the past few wars,the crown of Naples was exchanged between diffrent monarchies all the time,from the Aragoneese,to the Spanish,to the Austrians,then Spaniards again,then Napoleon,and finally the Bourbons.

Sicily was governed as Colony between diffrent states between more states and for even longer.

Yet when finally given the freedom to govern itself,the state faced many problems.The Sicilians wanted secession,nationalists began screaming unification,conservatives wanted a constitution,and peasants wanted worker rights and development of the agricultural economy.

Despite being the biggest territorially,structuraly it was one of the weakest,comparable to the Papacy.

Yet in 1848,people wanted change,and the crown,actually did give change. It gave autonomy to the Sicilian provinces,it gave a much wanted constitution which resembled the British one,it modernised the army,and it gave much needed rights to the workers of agriculture.For a point,it seemed the Two Sicilies could break away from the chains which tore them in the past and swell into the next century as a developing state.

Yet in our timeline,its duration, however, was limited: the constitution's effect ended with the reconquering of Sicily by the army of Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies in May 1849.

Yet what if that changed?

ALL THE KINGS MEN

Unlike most 1848 revolutionary movements,this one was actually mostly led by the Neopolitan conservative class,which mainly demanded a constitution to limit the King's power.That however,was mainly in Naples.

In Sicily,the revolution actually began before 1848,in September 1847,when people in Reggio Calabria began a Sicilian Secessionist Revolution.

Yet,as you may remember,it was crushed,and Sicily was granted autonomy afterwards,which silenced most up until the 1860s.

As for other territories,the Neopolitan Monarch as well as the French actually occupied the Papacy for some time when the Roman Republic was made.

Yet now,the Neopolitan King,emboldened by support at home,would try to show off by trying to maintain a presence for longer,especially South East-ish where most Sicilian armies stood.

This would prolong how much France would be involved,and probably push Napoleon III toward Sardinia Piedmont way sooner,and with much more French oversight.

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM

The one thing which would be hard to change,even with such a liberal reform,would be the Sicilian Economy. As I said,the country was mainly governed as a Colony for the previous century,and the economy reflected that.

The Southern landscape was mostly agricultural,and since most land was still in hands of the nobility,the proletariat had problems with poverty.

It was not good,the industrial projects were lackluster and lacked funding,the agriculture couldn't expand due to the nobility,and the King simply refused to do much.Plastering a constitution on the economy won't do much to save it.

The Two Sicilies did have a trick up their sleeve,they had more or less favourable relations with the British,which gave them much needed funds to make that industry happen.Although it wouldn't happen immediately,slowly but surely,the Kingdom would begin a recovery,as I predict that most PM's would be more focused on actually fixing what was in need,rather than investing in Romantisistic projects like Theaters or civilian ideas.However I can't predict too much,since I'm not a 19the century politician from the Two Sicilies,and I'm sure as hell not a countries Prime Minister,let alone economist.

THE PAPAL QUESTION

This would be the big one.Both France and Austria had an ambition over the Italian states,yet their ambitions mostly laid in the North,where the Piedmontian House of Savoy,and the Austrian Habsburgs fought over Milan and Central Italy.

Yet now we also have the Neopolitans,growing in size and sheer power.

At first,the two wouldn't care that much,especially France,since one of the segments of the Neaopolitan Constitution said that "the King of the Sicilies can't rule another nation" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Constitution_of_1848 ),so the two would scoff.Surely,this backward Southern Italian nation couldn't become a threat?

Yet it would,to one man.

To Rome.

Whilst the Constitution said that the King can't RULE any other country,that doesn't stop him from just taking a part of it for himself.

As you may remember (or see in the map) The Two Sicilies occupied Marcha and Southern Lazio during the Roman Republic.But the Republic is now gone,and thr French are too. So,what if instead of occupying them,we would just,annex them?Just like that.

Like who's going to stop them?France?

Yeah sure.

And so just like that,two more Provinces are added to the King of the Two Sicilies.

The Pope however,would be outraged.

The alliance between Rome and Naples would absolutely end,and the Pope would beg France for help against the Two Sicilies.

Would France invade?Probably not.

The Two Sicilies still have ties to the British,and they aren't some weak army to walk all over,plus this is not Napoleon Bonaparte the First,this is Napoleon Bonaparte the Third.

Most likely thing,is that France grows a bit more cautious in affairs with Italy,and increases their presence in Savoy even further.

Austria would likely do the same.Their entire identity laid in Catholic values,and the Sicilians doing that would absolutely upset the Austrians,at least,the more conservative ones.With the assention of Franz Joseph,Austria definitely became a bit more pragmatic in religious affairs,which,while may lay off a bit of heat,would still be very difficult to resolve even with Franz on the throne.

So let us wrap this up.

THE SECOND WAR OF ITALIAN INDEPENDENCE

In out timeline,this was basically the definitive war to kick Austria out of Italy.

Yet here,the Bourbons would likely become the main attraction.

Why?Well easy actually.

They're growing too fast and are becoming a bit too much for everyone.France fears a rival to Sardinia,Austria fears a strong Navy in the Straight of Taranto,everyone fears the Sicilian Army may just take Rome.

So in the end,after a new incident,which I won't delve into creating,a war would break out,basically a sort of Fourth Italian War

In a bit of an unholy alliance (similarly to the Seven Years War),France and Austria would ally each other,with Savoy functioning as their primary mainland ally.

Yet don't let this alliance fool you,just like in the Italian Wars,this is more so a temporary alignment against a single threat.

Can Naples beat both Austria and France at the same time?Nope.

Can they try and hold long enough to get a white peace?Yes,probably.

So after a few battles,the Austrians and French would just sue for peace.

The only thing I can see happening is that Naples would be forced to leave the PAPAL States,and assume neutrality.

After such a lackluster victory,the public support for the King would slowly come down,until eventually the Expidition of Garibaldi happens,and the Kingdoms Army,exhausted from the war,likely falls,replaced by the Savoyans.

CONCLUSION

Ironically,the scenario which aimed to strengthen the Two Sicilies,more so strengthens the Unified Italy.Whilst the Two Sicilies would be defeated,by the 1860s,the difference between the North and South,while still big,would become smaller,and fixing the Mezzogiorno would be way easier for the Kingdom of Italy.

That being said,an existence of such a Kingdom would definitely also spread the existence of South Italian nationalism,similarly to something like Occitania or Quebec,however much more Bourbon centered.

The South would also become a lot more conservative than in our timeline,and maybe this may even lead to the Monarchy surviving the 1950s in Italy.But who knows.

A scenario where the Two Sicilies lives is somewhere out there,but for now,that happening is more so a distant dream than reality.

So yeah.

WHAT IF DENMARK NORWAY SURVIVED?

CONTEXT

During the Napoleonic Wars,the Nordics are an often overlooked,yet important part of the war. It was probably the last major European War,before the Schlecwig Wars (in which only Denmark was involved) and World War 2,in which the Nordics played a major part.

Particularly the story played out between Sweden,Russia,England and Denmark-Norway.

Sweden,was mostly anti Napoleonic during the wars,whilst Denmark Norway preferred neutrality.

Both sides were still major powers in the region for the time,with Denmark Norway,possessing the world's 5th biggest navy,and Sweden one of the most capable forces of Europe.

Yet then,the King of Sweden-Karl Gustaf,died.And the heir he chose became the first Bernadotte of Sweden-Charles Jean.

By that point Sweden already joined the British and Russians,by signing a treaty with them during the war of the Sixth Coalition.

Denmark Norway however,was scared into submission because they,during the Treaties of Tilsit,were met with an ultimatum by Napoleon,which they reluctantly accepted and had to trade much of their navy to the bottom of the ocean for (because the British bombarded Copenhagen right after).

After the war ended,the Allied powers decided to punish Denmark by stripping it of Norway.

Yet the Norwegean nobility,determined to maintain the Union,decided to create a new constitution of Norway in 1814,and declare a regency for the king of Denmark- thus began the Swedish-Norwegean War of 1814.

Norway by that point however,was independent,and largely outnumbered by the Swedes,thus losing,and making way for the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway.

Yet,what if that,changed?

A NEW DANISH WAR

If Denmark wanted to have any chance of the war actually happening to succeed,they would have to use more direct measures to help the Norwegeans,like,Intervention.

Since Christian VIII still technically held the land,he could send troops to just,defend his realm.

So the Danish Army would now arrive to fight the Swedes.

Would that change much?Probably,but it still gives a better chance at a win then an outnumbered Norwegean force barely clinging onto any power.

Thus in the year of 1815,around a year after,the Great Powers would realise that making Norway join Sweden would be a bit unnecessary,and so would decide to just keep it under the Danish king,thus making way for a modern Danish-Norwegean Union.

THE FACADE OF FREEDOM

Just like with Schlecwig Holstein,whilst Christian would initially support liberal reforms and would likely make Norway even more broadly part of Denmark than under Sweden,eventually the real face would show. By the 1840s,the Danish king began to grow more and more conservative,beginning to drop any promises of truly Liberal reform.Thus around the later 1840s,the King began doing Danish centric reforms,slowly beginning to crackdown on autonomy of Schlecwig,and now,Norway.

The Norwegeans,as you may expect,wouldn't really want this,and then would come an even worse thing.

In January 1848,the King of Denmark Norway (in his words) "Didn't make it".He died,and his successor was Frederick VII was very much ill prepared for the throne,immediately being thrown in by the demands of a constitution by Danes,by demands of autonomy from Schlecwig Holsteiners,and now,by demands of INDEPENDENCE from Norway.

Yet for now,let's drift away from Denmark and look at the other Nordic country-Sweden.

THE FALLEN KINGDOM

Let's just say this,Sweden would be absolutely crippled by the thing which just happened.Just think about it,the one compensation they COULD have had,boom,gone.Stolen by Norwegeans at the last minute.Suddenly the Legitimacy of the Bernadottes is on an all time low.A foreign monarch,which lost Finland,lost Norway,and had failed to actually do anything useful.

Sure,maybe the Great Powers may try to compensate the Swedes elsewhere,like Pomerania,but there is no way that Prussia is just handing it away without a fight.

In the end,the attempt at constitutional Monarchy may result,not just in a failure,but in a repeat of 1772-The Gustavian Revolution would happen,and the deposed Crown Prince-Gustaf,Prince of Vasa would be restored to his throne,making him absolute monarch again.

Yet a problem would arise,he still had no Legitimacy between most people.

And here would come an interesting part.

KINGDOMS OF SWEDEN-...Greece?

WHAT.

Like actually,you aren't the only one surprised here,but I just thought that adding this here would be interesting.

For a breif time,Gustaf was actually considered to become King of Greece.Unironically.

And here,since the Great Powers have to appease Sweden somehow,and since Gustaf lacks Legitimacy,he would assume the title King of Greece.

Would this change anything domestically?No,not really.Its more so possible that some other man from Holstein Gottorp becomes the King of Greeece instead of a Personal Union,but still,the throne of Greece would be pretty interesting for Sweden.But I don't expect that Sweden would suddenly liberalise here,likely following the Prussian model,if not even stricter.

1848,THE WAR OF NORWEGEAN INDEPENDENCE

You probably saw this one coming.

There is no way that Denmark can keep holding Norway,just because of its more conservative Denmark centered nobility.Instead however,a cadet branch of Oldenburg would become the new kings of Norway,likely being Glucksburg.

Yup,we've basically made Norway independent a few decades before they actually did.

Interesting.

What would change however?

CONCLUSION

A lot.

For 1,Denmark would prove years ahead of time that the arrangement of Vienna could be forcefully broken,likely making Norway the rallying cry of many revolutions after,like Poland and Belgium.

As for 2,the Nordics would be changed massivly-Denmark would lose even more in 1848,likely resulting in the Southern Principalities,mostly Holstein,becoming free from Denmark,whilst the North,that being Schlecwig being integrated even further.

Sweden,would be left as completely and utterly broken,it's modernisation reduced by a long shot,and it's status as a Lion of the North being disputed.

Norway-would become the undeniable winner of the scenario.Not only would they gain independence,but they would also win it twice against both Sweden and Denmark,Norway would become by far the most developed and it's power in the Nordics area would become undisputed.