2F - The War of the Spanish Succession: the war in Europe
Learn how France's struggle to secure Philip V unfolded in Europe and overseas, why a series of defeats did not destroy French power, and how changes within the coalition helped bring the war towards a settlement.
European campaigns and French reversals
The War of the Spanish Succession placed France under pressure on several European fronts at once.
France supported Philip V in Spain while the allies backed Archduke Charles. Fighting also took place in the Spanish Netherlands, Italy and the German lands. French cooperation with Bavaria created a threat to the Austrian Habsburgs. If Vienna were overwhelmed, France might remove a major member of the coalition and release forces for other fronts.
At Blenheim in 1704, an allied army commanded by Marlborough and Prince Eugene defeated Franco-Bavarian forces. Marlborough's movement from the Low Countries to the Danube showed that armies could change the strategic situation through movement and supply as well as battlefield tactics. The victory removed the immediate threat to Vienna and kept the Habsburgs in the coalition. The National Army Museum's Blenheim account explains this strategic consequence.
Further reverses followed. Ramillies in 1706 opened much of the Spanish Netherlands to allied occupation. In Italy, the defeat of French forces at Turin in 1706 helped end French control of the principal theatre there. Oudenarde in 1708 and the subsequent loss of Lille brought the allies closer to France's northern defences.
These defeats did not settle Spain itself. Allied occupation of Madrid did not create durable control across a divided monarchy. Bourbon victory at Almanza in 1707 strengthened Philip's position, particularly in eastern Spain, while later victories in 1710 again frustrated efforts to replace him. Local support, supply and competing regional loyalties affected the result; success in the Low Countries could not simply be transferred into success in Spain.
The war must therefore be judged by theatres and objectives. France's capacity to expand was badly damaged, but Philip's continued possession of Spain prevented the allies achieving their entire dynastic programme.
Exhaustion and Malplaquet
Military defeats became particularly dangerous when they coincided with economic and social crisis.
Maintaining armies on several fronts required continued taxation, loans, recruitment and supplies. The Great Winter of 1709 damaged crops and intensified food shortage. Higher prices and hardship weakened taxpayers' capacity, while armies still needed grain and transport. Weather and war were separate causes that interacted: military demands made recovery from a natural disaster harder. Météo-France's historical account places the winter and Louis's public appeal in context.
Louis attempted peace negotiations. The allies' demands included removing Philip from Spain, and proposals that France should help bring that about made agreement especially difficult. Accepting the abandonment of some aims was different from committing French forces against Louis's own grandson. Dynastic honour, the practical strength of Philip in Spain and the demands of coalition politics obstructed a settlement.
At Malplaquet in 1709, the allies took the field and subsequently secured Mons, but suffered very heavy casualties. The French army under Villars withdrew without being destroyed. The outcome showed that allied victory could be too costly to produce the desired decisive result. It strengthened doubts about whether continued fighting was worth the sacrifice, while France demonstrated continuing capacity for resistance.
Louis's appeal to his subjects in 1709 sought support for continuing the war. That appeal reveals both resolve and need: a monarch claiming absolute authority still had to persuade people to endure further demands. Its existence is not proof that all subjects approved. The crown's survival required administrative effort and political cooperation as well as battlefield recovery.
This helps explain why defeat and exhaustion should not be confused with total collapse. France's situation was grave, but fortified frontiers, surviving armies and the rising costs to its enemies still gave it bargaining power.
The North American frontier
The North American conflict, often called Queen Anne's War, linked European dynastic rivalry to local contests over territory and security.
English colonists, French forces and Indigenous peoples fought along frontier settlements and around trading and fishing areas. Raids could devastate communities without establishing permanent control. The attack on Deerfield in 1704, carried out by French and Indigenous forces, involved killing and the taking of captives. Indigenous participants had their own relations with colonial powers and their own interests; describing them only as French or English instruments obscures why alliances varied.
The most significant British territorial success was the capture of Port-Royal in 1710 by an expedition under Francis Nicholson. It ended Port-Royal's role as the French capital of Acadia; the settlement was renamed Annapolis Royal. The position gave the British a foothold that peace later confirmed. Parks Canada's history of Fort Anne records the siege and the settlement's altered position.
Yet taking an Acadian fort did not amount to conquest of all New France. A British naval expedition against Quebec in 1711, led by Admiral Walker, failed after ships were wrecked in the St Lawrence. Long distances, navigation, weather and the difficulty of supplying an expedition limited what superiority at sea could accomplish. Quebec and the core French colony in Canada remained outside British control. Quebec's heritage record of the wreck sites relates the physical remains to contemporary accounts of the expedition.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account