Given that French/English relations were no warmer in this century than they were in most centuries, I find this extra remarkable.
This century, no, but this decade was special! The entire diplomatic picture of Europe in approximately 1716-1731 was so topsy-turvy that it's been called a diplomatic revolution of its own. France and England were allied, and eventually so were Austria and Spain. These were very unstable alliances, everyone knew they were unstable, governments planned their diplomatic strategies around trying to remind country A that their ally Country B was their natural enemy, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when things went back to normal in the 1730s.
1715-1720: The South The War of the Spanish Succession ends in 1714. As a reminder, that's England, Austria, and the Dutch against France and Spain.
By 1716, Britain and France are allied.
In Spain, Philip V wants the territory Spain lost in the recent war back. He invades Sardinia and Sicily in 1717-1718, and briefly recaptures them.
In 1717-1718, the British and French get together with the Dutch and the Austrians in the Quadruple Alliance to retake Sardinia and Sicily. This is when Berwick is reluctantly forced to invade Spain, the place where his son is in service and the place where he fought for 10 years to help Philip V keep his throne. This is seen as a highly unnatural war by both Spain and France, where it's unpopular.
By 1720, the War of the Quadruple Alliance has been won, and Philip has been forced to give back all the territory he reconquered.
1715-1720: The North Mewanwhile, the Great Northern War is still going on (since 1700). Prussia has recently entered the war and is allied with Russia, trying to get territory from Sweden (so Fredersdorf can become Prussian).
Britain is busy switching sides. Part of the problem (not the whole problem) is conflicting British and Hanoverian interests. Since the British minister, Stanhope, wins against his Hanoverian rival, we'll simplify matters by presenting this from his POV. (Stanhope is a distant cousin of the Chesterfield Stanhopes. He was most famous for being the leader of the British forces in Spain during the Spanish Succession).
He wants to pry Prussia away from Russia, by creating an anti-Russian bloc in the Baltic: Sweden, Prussia, Britain (navy). Britain is trying to pressure Prussia into signing a treaty. France is acting as the neutral guarantors of peace in the north.
Stanhope is pro-alliance with France:
Stanhope believed that peace in the north (which he deemed necessary for peace in the south) could best be achieved by working with France rather than with Austria and Saxony; France, in turn, urged the importance of co-operation with Prussia.
(France and Prussia had signed a secret alliance in 1716, during Whitworth's first, brief posting in Berlin. Rottembourg was there as French ambassador.)
1718-1720: Whitworth in Berlin In order to try to make the Anglo-Swedish-Prussian treaty happen, Stanhope sent Whitworth to Berlin, and with orders "seek an alliance with Prussia for George as King of Britain, in full communication with the French minister in Berlin." Unless there's another French minister in Berlin, that's Rottembourg.
Now, at this point, before he's left for Berlin, Whitworth is very very skeptical about the new French alliance:
you will see how slippery our new friends on the other side of the water are like to prove … thô they have peace in their mouths they have war in their hearts and encourage Spain to keep their broils on foot … a false friend is often more dangerous than an open Enemy
Then he arrives in Berlin and makes friends with Rottembourg. Who may be bribing him--Whitworth was one of the rare ambassadors not to be independently wealthy (remember that Fritz uses this as an argument for why Peter is not a suitable candidate for envoy), his salary is constantly in arrears, and he's constantly writing apologetic letters to his family asking them to support him and writing angry letters to the government telling them to pay his overdue salary already. But, let's remember:
1. Their countries are allied. 2. Whitworth's under orders from Chief Minister Stanhope to work in concert with Rottembourg. 3. The two instances of him and Rottembourg working in concert are Rottembourg helping *him* rather than the other way around: 3a. Rottembourg passing secret information to Whitworth. 3b. Whitworth trying to pressure FW into signing the treaty by confronting him directly, with Rottembourg (whose government wants France to be the guarantors of this treaty) at his side.
So the only thing I have evidence for here is Rottembourg bribing Whitworth into letting Rottembourg help him. ;)
1722-1725: The Congress of Cambrai It's a few years later, and everyone is still at each other's throats. The Congress of Cambrai is called so that Britain and France can mediate between Spain and Austria and get them to accept the distribution of territory that was agreed on in Utrecht at the end of the Spanish Succession.
Both Whitworth and Rottembourg are posted by their governments to Cambrai.
Unfortunately, the Congress is a dismal failure. Charles VI is determined to drag things out as long as possible, because he has everything to lose in a settlement (his Italian territories), and everything to gain by waiting (the Anglo-French alliance is considered unnatural and fragile, and by waiting, he hopes to drive a wedge between them). Both the French and the British have decided that nothing useful is going to happen at Cambrai, and the real negotiation is happening in Paris. It totally doesn't help that Philip V picks 1724 to abdicate.
Whitworth is trying to get actual work done, but his hands are tied. He writes that he likes Rottembourg personally, but the French government isn't keeping R in the loop, and Versailles is being sneaky and is going to screw the British over.
Now, Stanhope died in 1721, and the new British ministers are Townshend and Newcastle. Both are very pro-French alliance. (Not pro-French interests, mind you. Just think that working with France is the way to go.)
Newcastle tells Whitworth and his fellow ambassador that they are not to take any initiative at Cambrai, just let the French take the lead. He repeats this in every single dispatch. Whitworth and his companion find this humiliating. Keep in mind Whitworth has been ambassador for almost twenty-five years now, to the Imperial Diet, St. Petersburg, the Hague, and Berlin, and he's used his initiative a number of times.
The ambassadors have a little scuffle with the ministers back home, but the message from Newcastle and Townshend prevails: "You must let the French take the initiative and follow their lead."
They're nooooot happy.
Btw, just to emphasize the importance of the Anglo-French alliance during this period:
The Jacobites, in fact, had great hopes of armed support from Peter [the Great] in 1723 and 1724 but this never came to anything, not least because Peter valued French friendship in this period and the French, in turn, saw good relations with Britain as their main priority.
1725-1726: Where do I even start? Okay, so 1725-1726 is an eventful time.
Spain and Austria enter an alliance (called a diplomatic revolution by later historians, not sure about contemporaries). But remember, Charles VI still wants to be King of Spain! (He's officially given up, but he still wants to. And while the war may have ended ~1715, he didn't make peace with Spain until 1720.)
There's talk of marrying one of the archduchesses (like maybe MT) to one of the Spanish kids of Philip V and Isabella Farnese.
Prussia, France, Britain, and Hanover are allied against Austria and Spain, because they perceive Austria + Spain as a very threatening alliance, especially if the marriage happens. Yes, this is FW allied against his boss Charles VI. Remember this passage from Lavisse:
When he became allied to France and England, in 1725, he reserved to himself the right to furnish to the Emperor the contingent that he owed, in his quality of Elector, at the same time that he assisted the King of France with the number of troops fixed by the treaty. It certainly is to be regretted that this clause had not been put into action, and that Europe had not witnessed this spectacle of the King of Prussia fighting the Elector of Brandenburg.
(Later, FW will leave the alliance and go back to hating on Hanover and supporting the Emperor. Up until he supports the French candidate for the Polish throne and has Hans Heinrich host him, while fighting the French alongside Eugene. Because HRE politics are really something else.)
The Duc de Bourbon sends the Spanish princess back so he can marry Louis to Marie Leszczynska, the Spanish get offended and send the French princess back, Spain and France stop speaking to each other.
The Duc de Bourbon falls from power; Fleury takes over.
Spain and England are in a state of semi-war that's threatening to explode into something bigger, etc.
Isabella Farnese really really really wants Parma and Tuscany for her kids.
1727-1728: Rottembourg in Spain So in 1727, frantic diplomacy is happening. Britain, the Netherlands, Austria, and France, sign preliminary peace agreements, in Paris and in Vienna. But since the Spanish aren't speaking to the French, due to the offense taken over the sending back of the princesses, and are in a state of lowkey war with Britain, there're no Spanish ambassadors around to sign treaties in France or Britain.
So Fleury sends an ambassador to Spain in late 1727 and tells him, "You get Philip and Isabella to agree to this peace!"
That ambassador is Rottembourg. (Whitworth died in 1725, btw, still poor enough that he was lamenting that despite his decades of faithful service to his country, his wife was going to have to petition the crown for support. If Rottembourg gave him money, it was not a lot.)
The British don't have an ambassador in Spain. They have a "consul", Benjamin Keene. This is fairly usual, btw; if you're not on speaking terms with a country, or if you're just not interested in negotiating something specific, you might not pay an ambassador to hang out fiddling his thumbs (Whitworth would argue that they don't pay you even when you are negotiating); but leave his secretary or somesuch there to be your lower-paid point of contact and send you info. But because this secretary isn't credentialed, they don't have authority to negotiate. France did this with Prussia after Rottembourg left the last time. It's what Fritz was doing when he refused to replace the ambassador in Britain with Peter Keith and left the guy who probably hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia there; he was not saying, "I prefer this guy to Peter," he was saying, "I prefer no diplomatic representation in Britain because I'm more interested in insulting them this year than negotiating with them." When he wanted subsidies, he sent a credentialed Knyphausen authorized to negotiate.
Anyway. Keene, the British consul, will later play a significant role as diplomat, but right now he's extremely tentative and not sure what on earth is going on or what he's allowed to do. He knows he's not an ambassador.
So Rottembourg takes the initiative, negotiates, gets Keene introduced at court, and presents Philip and Isabella with terms that are favorable to Spain. The Spanish sign off on it, and everyone's happy...until the British ministers, who've been letting the French take the lead in the negotiations in Spain again, find out that Rottembourg granted Spain concessions at British's expense, and that Keene was present at the audience, and that he gave the impression that the British had agreed to this.
Horace Walpole, currently British ambassador to France: Hey, Newcastle, did you hear what just went down in Spain? Can you *believe* the fucking French?
Newcastle: Omg, Keene, you pull anything like that ever again...
Keene: But I'm not even an ambassador! I assumed since we were letting the French take the lead, and they had an actual ambassador who acted like he knew what he was doing, that whatever he did was what I was supposed to do!
Newcastle: Okay, yeah, fair. Fleury, WTF was your guy up to?
Fleury: Fuck. As long as Spain and Austria are still allies, I need the English. Okay, Newcastle, sorry, Rottembourg was *totally* unauthorized to make those concessions! Rottembourg, slap on the wrist, treaty void, start over again.
It's unclear how mad Fleury actually was at Rottembourg; he got publicly reprimanded, but some of my sources indicate the French were actually mad at the English but their hands were tied. And at least the French Secretary of State thought Rottembourg had been unfairly scapegoated, so he insisted the new treaty had to be signed by Rottembourg (i.e. as a sign that he was not in total disgrace).
In March 1728, the Spanish sign the Peace of Pardo on terms that everyone has agreed to. In April, Rottembourg leaves Spain. In July, Philip starts thinking he's a frog. In October, Katte shows up in Paris. (Which is how I totally know Rottembourg was not in Spain when Katte was supposed to be traveling there.)
In conclusion:
- Everything is upside down and inside out in the late 1710s and 1720s. - The tendency of the English ministers for a decade to tell their ambassadors to work with the French and to let the French take the lead is why I don't think we have evidence that Rottembourg was bribing Whitworth in 1718-1720.
My impression is that Whitworth liked Rottembourg personally but really didn't like working with the French, and was having a French alliance shoved down his throat by his bosses. (Btw, Newcastle was almost 20 years younger than Whitworth, which was one reason it was so insulting when Newcastle's every letter to Whitworth at Cambrai was like, "And don't take any diplomatic initiative!" "Fuck you, Newcastle, I've been taking diplomatic initiative since you were in petticoats.")
By 1720, the War of the Quadruple Alliance has been won, and Philip has been forced to give back all the territory he reconquered.
Just to connect the dots, this is when Philip's mental health really tanks and he starts talking abdication. In 1724, he finally abdicates. Then he resumes power, tries to abdicate again, Isabella won't let him, and then the really terrible symptoms of which we know start happening in 1727 (year of Rottembourg's first arrival).
1. Their countries are allied. 2. Whitworth's under orders from Chief Minister Stanhope to work in concert with Rottembourg. 3. The two instances of him and Rottembourg working in concert are Rottembourg helping *him* rather than the other way around:
Aha, I chased down one of the sources of the Whitworth volume, and apparently, according to Whitworth, Rottembourg said that during the episode in which he got his hands on a draft of the proposed secret treaty between Prussia and Russia, he told Ilgen that if it contained anything against the king of England, according to his instructions from Versailles, he would have to tell Whitworth.
And Whitworth wrote all this to Stanhope and requested extreme secrecy, because if word got out that Rottembourg was passing him info, R would be compromised and unable to pass any more info on.
Also, apparently Rottembourg was in his bed and half asleep when he got the delivery meant for the Russian minister, saw what it was, closed it again, and sent it to the Russian minister.
I've sent a request to Royal Patron for a download of this pdf, which is George I and the Northern War, 1909, by James Chance, and which I can read and search but not download. Sigh. I can see it has Løvenørn!
Whitworth, biographer, btw, says Rottembourg was born in Italy, but then also says he was a Brandenburger who entered French service, when the Chance volume agrees with all my other sources that it was his father who did that. So grain of salt.
Oh, hey! I was searching Rottembourg's name (it is conveniently likely to turn up him and no one else, unlike *some* names I could mention), and I found the source for a story I'd encountered in several places: the memoirs of Marshal Villars (French commander at Malplaquet) say that it was Rottembourg who reported that FW beat Fritz for a "surprising reason": FW had ordered his family to eat with iron forks with two prongs, and he caught Fritz eating with a three-pronged silver fork, which enraged him and caused him to beat Fritz. This is 1727, btw, in case anyone tries to tell you FW only beat him in 1730. He'd been beating Fritz for quite some time at that point.
Allow me to doubt not that he'd been beating Fritz but the iron forks with two prongs vs three pronged silver fork thing, because as far as I recall the three pronged fork first was introduced to the German territories in the reign of Maximilian I., several centuries earlier. (Luther bitched about it as Latin decadence.) Which makes me feel a two forked iron vs three forked silver conflict in 1727 would have been pretty late. Otoh, I can imagine a French envoy making that crack on a similar note like reporting AW didn't know to read or write before Fritz came on the throne (which we know for sure not to be true, not least because there are letters from child AW available); he's making a point about FW being an uncultured barbarian.
I could be wrong, of course; googling tells me that the use of the fork among wider swathes of the population in Germany only happened near the end of the 17th century, though it was earlier used in court circles. Which could, in theory, mean that wanting-to-live-as-a-burgher FW could insist on his family using two pronged iron forks over three pronged silver forks thirty years later. But it still sounds a bit fake to me.
The forks, to make that once more clear, NOT that FW was already hitting Fritz in 1727. But honestly, I think a more likely cause would be something like finding Fritz' table manners or hygiene sloppy. Which would also be easier to blame Fritz for, using FW type of logic, than which table wear he uses, because that's actually not a decision for fifteen years old Fritz to make. It's something decided by whoever is in charge of the household where he's staying, Wusterhausen, Potsdam and Monbijou alike. Who wouldn't have been Fritz. Like I said: I suspect Rottembourg heard something about FW hitting Fritz because he objected to his table manners and changed that into an anecdote for the French court that also made FW look even worse.
Re: Whitworth and Rottembourg, you've convinced me!
Ahh, interesting! I knew that there was a transition, but not when it was.
I could be wrong, of course; googling tells me that the use of the fork among wider swathes of the population in Germany only happened near the end of the 17th century, though it was earlier used in court circles. Which could, in theory, mean that wanting-to-live-as-a-burgher FW could insist on his family using two pronged iron forks over three pronged silver forks thirty years later. But it still sounds a bit fake to me.
All my googling of random unreliable websites is telling me that the upper classes tried to introduce the three-tined fork, and then there was a lag of centuries before it caught on with everyone. But I'm getting wildly different dates on when the three tines caught on in Germany. Everyone agrees, though, that the farther north you go, the longer it took to catch on. It was a sign of Italian effeminacy for a long time. (In the British lower classes, apparently as late as 1897!)
Also, apparently forks were used for different purposes at different times, and using a fork the way we would use it, to put food on and stick in your mouth, rather than just stabbing your meat while carving, took much longer to catch on, and that the usage was tied to the number of tines.
One site claims, "As Ferdinand Braudel notes in The Structure of Everyday Life, around the beginning of the 18th century, Louis XIV forbade his children to eat with the forks that their tutor had encouraged them to use."
But I'm already questioning that, because by the early 18th century, Louis XIV's children had children who had children!
But yeah, since our source isn't even a dispatch by Rottembourg, but a memoir by Villars, I'm fully prepared for the story to have grown in the telling, even if Rottembourg said something completely different. And if Rottembourg did exaggerate, as you noted, he was no fan of FW!
So possibly true, possibly fake.
Which would also be easier to blame Fritz for, using FW type of logic, than which table wear he uses, because that's actually not a decision for fifteen years old Fritz to make. It's something decided by whoever is in charge of the household where he's staying, Wusterhausen, Potsdam and Monbijou alike.
This is the part I don't find totally convincing: FW is an abuser, and punishing people for things they weren't strictly responsible for is part of abuse. Even if you assume the account in Wilhelmine where she and Fritz got plates thrown at them for Friederike Luise's backtalk is an exaggeration, and Catt's account of how FW beat both the tutor and small child Fritz for Fritz learning Latin is Catt making things up, I'd be surprised if FW never hit Fritz for the adults having him do things FW didn't want him doing.
This is fairly usual, btw; if you're not on speaking terms with a country, or if you're just not interested in negotiating something specific, you might not pay an ambassador to hang out fiddling his thumbs (Whitworth would argue that they don't pay you even when you are negotiating); but leave his secretary or somesuch there to be your lower-paid point of contact and send you info. But because this secretary isn't credentialed, they don't have authority to negotiate. France did this with Prussia after Rottembourg left the last time. It's what Fritz was doing when he refused to replace the ambassador in Britain with Peter Keith and left the guy who probably hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia there; he was not saying, "I prefer this guy to Peter," he was saying, "I prefer no diplomatic representation in Britain because I'm more interested in insulting them this year than negotiating with them."
Heh, Fritz.
...Although um if you have told me about the Great Northern War I have completely forgotten; can I have a relatively short recap?
Although um if you have told me about the Great Northern War I have completely forgotten; can I have a relatively short recap?
I have not! What I've said is that having finished the War of the Spanish Succession, I would like to learn about the Great Northern War, which is how I got onto Whitworth in the first place. It's a complicated twenty-year war involving tons of countries and principalities, and shifting alliances, and I barely know anything about it, so my recap will be sketchy in both quality and quantity, but here goes.
17th century Sweden was a significant military power, dominating the Baltic on both land and sea. In 1700, their neighbors, including Peter the Great in Russia, decide to take advantage of the fact that the new king is an inexperienced 18-yo and try to get some land back. Unfortunately, that 18-yo is Charles XII, who will be a famous, if ultimately unsuccessful, general.
He wins a bunch of battles. Storms through Poland, kicks August of Saxony off the throne and installs Stanislas Leszczynski. Stanislas' first reign of Poland only lasts a few years, just like his second reign in the 1730s.
Charles XII invades Russia, but as we discussed in the War of the Spanish Succession, ends up trying to live off the land during the great winter of 1708/1709. 1709, the year of Malplaquet, is also the year of Poltava, the big battle where Peter the Great's forces kick Charles' butt, and put an end to Sweden's superpower days. Also to Stanislas' days as King of Poland.
But the war is only halfway over, and more countries get involved. Brandenburg-Prussia and Hanover both want strategically located territory. Hanover wants Bremen-Verden to connect them to the Baltic.
FW wants Swedish Pomerania and especially Stettin.
He'll end up getting the southern part of Pomerania to go with the Pomerania he already owns. Take a look at the blue area on the map that's between the orange parts. That's the part he gets. You'll see Stettin, and if you go south along the river a bit, you'll see Gartz, Fredersdorf's hometown.
If you go way up north in the blue and off the to the west, you'll see Stralsund. The siege here is where FW met and decided he liked Seckendorff and Duhan. Duhan was so brave that FW immediately decided to enlist him as tutor for Fritz (Fritz is 3 years old at this point, in 1715), causing adult Fritz to snark about how unusual it is to engage a tutor in a trench. Also, FW totally missed the mark on this one too, as usual, thinking that a good soldier can't also be a cultured man of French manners! (I see the campaign to have Eugene be his role model failed.)
Then Whitworth and Rottembourg show up in Berlin the late 1710s, trying to get FW to reach terms with Sweden and Britain so affairs can be settled in the Baltic. In the end, he gets the parts of Swedish Pomerania he most wanted, and Hanover gets Bremen-Verden.
And one day, if all goes well, you may get a more in-depth dive into this war.
Addendum re: Sweden - one big reason for it's military superpower status at the start of the 18th century lies in the Thirty-Years-War, which ended mid 17th century and which changed so much for European history. Incidentally, Mildred, I know it's not your medium, but there is a pretty good docudrama miniseries Das Eiserne Zeitalter which I've watched in recent weeks on Amazon Prime, a French-German coproduction which introduced me among other things to the fact we have the diaries of a mercenary from the Thirty Years War, Peter Altendorf. He was one of the few who could read and write, and he survived the entire war. He himself as a Lutheran but mostly served in Catholic armies. The diary won't be able to explain to you the big picture, but if you want to read something about the day to day life, then, going by the excerpts, it's ideal.
Anyway: the first Northern European country to intervene in the 30 Years War on the Protestant side was Denmark, which was soundly beaten, but then the Swedes showed up, and their King Gustav Adolf was one of those hardcore military talents who came this close to conquering his way all the way to Vienna. (Wallenstein could then distract him not by defending Vienna but by scouring Saxony (allied to Gustav Adolf), which also threatened to cut him off from his supply lines, so the Swedes had to turn back. Gustav Adolf later died in battle, undefeated unlike Charles XII later, but he died. This didn't mean the Swedes left the war, though. By the time the war had ended Sweden had gone from also ran to top European power, definitely one of the most feared military powers, with a large say so in trade. Bear in mind that Sweden itself, the territory, had seen no battle, since most of the war took place in the HRE, i.e. mostly, though not exclusively, the German speaking principalities. And it had been so brutal and devastating that a third of the population was gone, most cities were at least partly damaged and had to be rebuild. You may or may not recall the Great Elector of Brandenburg (FW's grandfather) spent years as a child in Küstrin because it was one of the few fortresses his parents deemed safe. One reason why both FW and Fritz actively advertised for settlers was that the population was still recovering, even in the next century, from the long term effects of the 30 Years War devastation. Trying to get territory from Sweden, which had immensely profitted in terms of finances, power and economy from the same war, also falls into that larger context.
we have the diaries of a mercenary from the Thirty Years War, Peter Altendorf.
Thanks, will keep this in mind if I manage to get the big picture of the Thirty Years' War *and* adequate German to be able to find the interesting parts quickly.
Meanwhile, Der Kaiser reist inkognito is perfect, and I'm about 1/3 of the way through! Slow going just because work has been so demanding lately, but exactly what I was looking for, thank you. <3
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The other diplomatic revolution(s)
This century, no, but this decade was special! The entire diplomatic picture of Europe in approximately 1716-1731 was so topsy-turvy that it's been called a diplomatic revolution of its own. France and England were allied, and eventually so were Austria and Spain. These were very unstable alliances, everyone knew they were unstable, governments planned their diplomatic strategies around trying to remind country A that their ally Country B was their natural enemy, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief when things went back to normal in the 1730s.
1715-1720: The South
The War of the Spanish Succession ends in 1714. As a reminder, that's England, Austria, and the Dutch against France and Spain.
By 1716, Britain and France are allied.
In Spain, Philip V wants the territory Spain lost in the recent war back. He invades Sardinia and Sicily in 1717-1718, and briefly recaptures them.
In 1717-1718, the British and French get together with the Dutch and the Austrians in the Quadruple Alliance to retake Sardinia and Sicily. This is when Berwick is reluctantly forced to invade Spain, the place where his son is in service and the place where he fought for 10 years to help Philip V keep his throne. This is seen as a highly unnatural war by both Spain and France, where it's unpopular.
By 1720, the War of the Quadruple Alliance has been won, and Philip has been forced to give back all the territory he reconquered.
1715-1720: The North
Mewanwhile, the Great Northern War is still going on (since 1700). Prussia has recently entered the war and is allied with Russia, trying to get territory from Sweden (so Fredersdorf can become Prussian).
Britain is busy switching sides. Part of the problem (not the whole problem) is conflicting British and Hanoverian interests. Since the British minister, Stanhope, wins against his Hanoverian rival, we'll simplify matters by presenting this from his POV. (Stanhope is a distant cousin of the Chesterfield Stanhopes. He was most famous for being the leader of the British forces in Spain during the Spanish Succession).
He wants to pry Prussia away from Russia, by creating an anti-Russian bloc in the Baltic: Sweden, Prussia, Britain (navy). Britain is trying to pressure Prussia into signing a treaty. France is acting as the neutral guarantors of peace in the north.
Stanhope is pro-alliance with France:
Stanhope believed that peace in the north (which he deemed necessary for peace in the south) could best be achieved by working with France rather than with Austria and Saxony; France, in turn, urged the importance of co-operation with Prussia.
(France and Prussia had signed a secret alliance in 1716, during Whitworth's first, brief posting in Berlin. Rottembourg was there as French ambassador.)
1718-1720: Whitworth in Berlin
In order to try to make the Anglo-Swedish-Prussian treaty happen, Stanhope sent Whitworth to Berlin, and with orders "seek an alliance with Prussia for George as King of Britain, in full communication with the French minister in Berlin." Unless there's another French minister in Berlin, that's Rottembourg.
Now, at this point, before he's left for Berlin, Whitworth is very very skeptical about the new French alliance:
you will see how slippery our new friends on the other side of the water are like to prove … thô they have peace in their mouths they have war in their hearts and encourage Spain to keep their broils on foot … a false friend is often more dangerous than an open Enemy
Then he arrives in Berlin and makes friends with Rottembourg. Who may be bribing him--Whitworth was one of the rare ambassadors not to be independently wealthy (remember that Fritz uses this as an argument for why Peter is not a suitable candidate for envoy), his salary is constantly in arrears, and he's constantly writing apologetic letters to his family asking them to support him and writing angry letters to the government telling them to pay his overdue salary already. But, let's remember:
1. Their countries are allied.
2. Whitworth's under orders from Chief Minister Stanhope to work in concert with Rottembourg.
3. The two instances of him and Rottembourg working in concert are Rottembourg helping *him* rather than the other way around:
3a. Rottembourg passing secret information to Whitworth.
3b. Whitworth trying to pressure FW into signing the treaty by confronting him directly, with Rottembourg (whose government wants France to be the guarantors of this treaty) at his side.
So the only thing I have evidence for here is Rottembourg bribing Whitworth into letting Rottembourg help him. ;)
1722-1725: The Congress of Cambrai
It's a few years later, and everyone is still at each other's throats. The Congress of Cambrai is called so that Britain and France can mediate between Spain and Austria and get them to accept the distribution of territory that was agreed on in Utrecht at the end of the Spanish Succession.
Both Whitworth and Rottembourg are posted by their governments to Cambrai.
Unfortunately, the Congress is a dismal failure. Charles VI is determined to drag things out as long as possible, because he has everything to lose in a settlement (his Italian territories), and everything to gain by waiting (the Anglo-French alliance is considered unnatural and fragile, and by waiting, he hopes to drive a wedge between them). Both the French and the British have decided that nothing useful is going to happen at Cambrai, and the real negotiation is happening in Paris. It totally doesn't help that Philip V picks 1724 to abdicate.
Whitworth is trying to get actual work done, but his hands are tied. He writes that he likes Rottembourg personally, but the French government isn't keeping R in the loop, and Versailles is being sneaky and is going to screw the British over.
Now, Stanhope died in 1721, and the new British ministers are Townshend and Newcastle. Both are very pro-French alliance. (Not pro-French interests, mind you. Just think that working with France is the way to go.)
Newcastle tells Whitworth and his fellow ambassador that they are not to take any initiative at Cambrai, just let the French take the lead. He repeats this in every single dispatch. Whitworth and his companion find this humiliating. Keep in mind Whitworth has been ambassador for almost twenty-five years now, to the Imperial Diet, St. Petersburg, the Hague, and Berlin, and he's used his initiative a number of times.
The ambassadors have a little scuffle with the ministers back home, but the message from Newcastle and Townshend prevails: "You must let the French take the initiative and follow their lead."
They're nooooot happy.
Btw, just to emphasize the importance of the Anglo-French alliance during this period:
The Jacobites, in fact, had great hopes of armed support from Peter [the Great] in 1723 and 1724 but this never came to anything, not least because Peter valued French friendship in this period and the French, in turn, saw good relations with Britain as their main priority.
1725-1726: Where do I even start?
Okay, so 1725-1726 is an eventful time.
Spain and Austria enter an alliance (called a diplomatic revolution by later historians, not sure about contemporaries). But remember, Charles VI still wants to be King of Spain! (He's officially given up, but he still wants to. And while the war may have ended ~1715, he didn't make peace with Spain until 1720.)
There's talk of marrying one of the archduchesses (like maybe MT) to one of the Spanish kids of Philip V and Isabella Farnese.
Prussia, France, Britain, and Hanover are allied against Austria and Spain, because they perceive Austria + Spain as a very threatening alliance, especially if the marriage happens. Yes, this is FW allied against his boss Charles VI. Remember this passage from Lavisse:
When he became allied to France and England, in 1725, he reserved to himself the right to furnish to the Emperor the contingent that he owed, in his quality of Elector, at the same time that he assisted the King of France with the number of troops fixed by the treaty. It certainly is to be regretted that this clause had not been put into action, and that Europe had not witnessed this spectacle of the King of Prussia fighting the Elector of Brandenburg.
(Later, FW will leave the alliance and go back to hating on Hanover and supporting the Emperor. Up until he supports the French candidate for the Polish throne and has Hans Heinrich host him, while fighting the French alongside Eugene. Because HRE politics are really something else.)
The Duc de Bourbon sends the Spanish princess back so he can marry Louis to Marie Leszczynska, the Spanish get offended and send the French princess back, Spain and France stop speaking to each other.
The Duc de Bourbon falls from power; Fleury takes over.
Spain and England are in a state of semi-war that's threatening to explode into something bigger, etc.
Isabella Farnese really really really wants Parma and Tuscany for her kids.
1727-1728: Rottembourg in Spain
So in 1727, frantic diplomacy is happening. Britain, the Netherlands, Austria, and France, sign preliminary peace agreements, in Paris and in Vienna. But since the Spanish aren't speaking to the French, due to the offense taken over the sending back of the princesses, and are in a state of lowkey war with Britain, there're no Spanish ambassadors around to sign treaties in France or Britain.
So Fleury sends an ambassador to Spain in late 1727 and tells him, "You get Philip and Isabella to agree to this peace!"
That ambassador is Rottembourg. (Whitworth died in 1725, btw, still poor enough that he was lamenting that despite his decades of faithful service to his country, his wife was going to have to petition the crown for support. If Rottembourg gave him money, it was not a lot.)
The British don't have an ambassador in Spain. They have a "consul", Benjamin Keene. This is fairly usual, btw; if you're not on speaking terms with a country, or if you're just not interested in negotiating something specific, you might not pay an ambassador to hang out fiddling his thumbs (Whitworth would argue that they don't pay you even when you are negotiating); but leave his secretary or somesuch there to be your lower-paid point of contact and send you info. But because this secretary isn't credentialed, they don't have authority to negotiate. France did this with Prussia after Rottembourg left the last time. It's what Fritz was doing when he refused to replace the ambassador in Britain with Peter Keith and left the guy who probably hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia there; he was not saying, "I prefer this guy to Peter," he was saying, "I prefer no diplomatic representation in Britain because I'm more interested in insulting them this year than negotiating with them." When he wanted subsidies, he sent a credentialed Knyphausen authorized to negotiate.
Anyway. Keene, the British consul, will later play a significant role as diplomat, but right now he's extremely tentative and not sure what on earth is going on or what he's allowed to do. He knows he's not an ambassador.
So Rottembourg takes the initiative, negotiates, gets Keene introduced at court, and presents Philip and Isabella with terms that are favorable to Spain. The Spanish sign off on it, and everyone's happy...until the British ministers, who've been letting the French take the lead in the negotiations in Spain again, find out that Rottembourg granted Spain concessions at British's expense, and that Keene was present at the audience, and that he gave the impression that the British had agreed to this.
Horace Walpole, currently British ambassador to France: Hey, Newcastle, did you hear what just went down in Spain? Can you *believe* the fucking French?
Newcastle: Omg, Keene, you pull anything like that ever again...
Keene: But I'm not even an ambassador! I assumed since we were letting the French take the lead, and they had an actual ambassador who acted like he knew what he was doing, that whatever he did was what I was supposed to do!
Newcastle: Okay, yeah, fair. Fleury, WTF was your guy up to?
Fleury: Fuck. As long as Spain and Austria are still allies, I need the English. Okay, Newcastle, sorry, Rottembourg was *totally* unauthorized to make those concessions! Rottembourg, slap on the wrist, treaty void, start over again.
It's unclear how mad Fleury actually was at Rottembourg; he got publicly reprimanded, but some of my sources indicate the French were actually mad at the English but their hands were tied. And at least the French Secretary of State thought Rottembourg had been unfairly scapegoated, so he insisted the new treaty had to be signed by Rottembourg (i.e. as a sign that he was not in total disgrace).
In March 1728, the Spanish sign the Peace of Pardo on terms that everyone has agreed to. In April, Rottembourg leaves Spain. In July, Philip starts thinking he's a frog. In October, Katte shows up in Paris. (Which is how I totally know Rottembourg was not in Spain when Katte was supposed to be traveling there.)
In conclusion:
- Everything is upside down and inside out in the late 1710s and 1720s.
- The tendency of the English ministers for a decade to tell their ambassadors to work with the French and to let the French take the lead is why I don't think we have evidence that Rottembourg was bribing Whitworth in 1718-1720.
My impression is that Whitworth liked Rottembourg personally but really didn't like working with the French, and was having a French alliance shoved down his throat by his bosses. (Btw, Newcastle was almost 20 years younger than Whitworth, which was one reason it was so insulting when Newcastle's every letter to Whitworth at Cambrai was like, "And don't take any diplomatic initiative!" "Fuck you, Newcastle, I've been taking diplomatic initiative since you were in petticoats.")
Re: The other diplomatic revolution(s)
Just to connect the dots, this is when Philip's mental health really tanks and he starts talking abdication. In 1724, he finally abdicates. Then he resumes power, tries to abdicate again, Isabella won't let him, and then the really terrible symptoms of which we know start happening in 1727 (year of Rottembourg's first arrival).
Re: The other diplomatic revolution(s): Addendum
2. Whitworth's under orders from Chief Minister Stanhope to work in concert with Rottembourg.
3. The two instances of him and Rottembourg working in concert are Rottembourg helping *him* rather than the other way around:
Aha, I chased down one of the sources of the Whitworth volume, and apparently, according to Whitworth, Rottembourg said that during the episode in which he got his hands on a draft of the proposed secret treaty between Prussia and Russia, he told Ilgen that if it contained anything against the king of England, according to his instructions from Versailles, he would have to tell Whitworth.
And Whitworth wrote all this to Stanhope and requested extreme secrecy, because if word got out that Rottembourg was passing him info, R would be compromised and unable to pass any more info on.
Also, apparently Rottembourg was in his bed and half asleep when he got the delivery meant for the Russian minister, saw what it was, closed it again, and sent it to the Russian minister.
I've sent a request to Royal Patron for a download of this pdf, which is George I and the Northern War, 1909, by James Chance, and which I can read and search but not download. Sigh. I can see it has Løvenørn!
Whitworth, biographer, btw, says Rottembourg was born in Italy, but then also says he was a Brandenburger who entered French service, when the Chance volume agrees with all my other sources that it was his father who did that. So grain of salt.
Oh, hey! I was searching Rottembourg's name (it is conveniently likely to turn up him and no one else, unlike *some* names I could mention), and I found the source for a story I'd encountered in several places: the memoirs of Marshal Villars (French commander at Malplaquet) say that it was Rottembourg who reported that FW beat Fritz for a "surprising reason": FW had ordered his family to eat with iron forks with two prongs, and he caught Fritz eating with a three-pronged silver fork, which enraged him and caused him to beat Fritz. This is 1727, btw, in case anyone tries to tell you FW only beat him in 1730. He'd been beating Fritz for quite some time at that point.
Re: The other diplomatic revolution(s): Addendum
I could be wrong, of course; googling tells me that the use of the fork among wider swathes of the population in Germany only happened near the end of the 17th century, though it was earlier used in court circles. Which could, in theory, mean that wanting-to-live-as-a-burgher FW could insist on his family using two pronged iron forks over three pronged silver forks thirty years later. But it still sounds a bit fake to me.
The forks, to make that once more clear, NOT that FW was already hitting Fritz in 1727. But honestly, I think a more likely cause would be something like finding Fritz' table manners or hygiene sloppy. Which would also be easier to blame Fritz for, using FW type of logic, than which table wear he uses, because that's actually not a decision for fifteen years old Fritz to make. It's something decided by whoever is in charge of the household where he's staying, Wusterhausen, Potsdam and Monbijou alike. Who wouldn't have been Fritz. Like I said: I suspect Rottembourg heard something about FW hitting Fritz because he objected to his table manners and changed that into an anecdote for the French court that also made FW look even worse.
Re: Whitworth and Rottembourg, you've convinced me!
Re: The other diplomatic revolution(s): Addendum
I could be wrong, of course; googling tells me that the use of the fork among wider swathes of the population in Germany only happened near the end of the 17th century, though it was earlier used in court circles. Which could, in theory, mean that wanting-to-live-as-a-burgher FW could insist on his family using two pronged iron forks over three pronged silver forks thirty years later. But it still sounds a bit fake to me.
All my googling of random unreliable websites is telling me that the upper classes tried to introduce the three-tined fork, and then there was a lag of centuries before it caught on with everyone. But I'm getting wildly different dates on when the three tines caught on in Germany. Everyone agrees, though, that the farther north you go, the longer it took to catch on. It was a sign of Italian effeminacy for a long time. (In the British lower classes, apparently as late as 1897!)
Also, apparently forks were used for different purposes at different times, and using a fork the way we would use it, to put food on and stick in your mouth, rather than just stabbing your meat while carving, took much longer to catch on, and that the usage was tied to the number of tines.
One site claims, "As Ferdinand Braudel notes in The Structure of Everyday Life, around the beginning of the 18th century, Louis XIV forbade his children to eat with the forks that their tutor had encouraged them to use."
But I'm already questioning that, because by the early 18th century, Louis XIV's children had children who had children!
But yeah, since our source isn't even a dispatch by Rottembourg, but a memoir by Villars, I'm fully prepared for the story to have grown in the telling, even if Rottembourg said something completely different. And if Rottembourg did exaggerate, as you noted, he was no fan of FW!
So possibly true, possibly fake.
Which would also be easier to blame Fritz for, using FW type of logic, than which table wear he uses, because that's actually not a decision for fifteen years old Fritz to make. It's something decided by whoever is in charge of the household where he's staying, Wusterhausen, Potsdam and Monbijou alike.
This is the part I don't find totally convincing: FW is an abuser, and punishing people for things they weren't strictly responsible for is part of abuse. Even if you assume the account in Wilhelmine where she and Fritz got plates thrown at them for Friederike Luise's backtalk is an exaggeration, and Catt's account of how FW beat both the tutor and small child Fritz for Fritz learning Latin is Catt making things up, I'd be surprised if FW never hit Fritz for the adults having him do things FW didn't want him doing.
Re: The other diplomatic revolution(s)
This is fairly usual, btw; if you're not on speaking terms with a country, or if you're just not interested in negotiating something specific, you might not pay an ambassador to hang out fiddling his thumbs (Whitworth would argue that they don't pay you even when you are negotiating); but leave his secretary or somesuch there to be your lower-paid point of contact and send you info. But because this secretary isn't credentialed, they don't have authority to negotiate. France did this with Prussia after Rottembourg left the last time. It's what Fritz was doing when he refused to replace the ambassador in Britain with Peter Keith and left the guy who probably hadn't even sworn loyalty to Prussia there; he was not saying, "I prefer this guy to Peter," he was saying, "I prefer no diplomatic representation in Britain because I'm more interested in insulting them this year than negotiating with them."
Heh, Fritz.
...Although um if you have told me about the Great Northern War I have completely forgotten; can I have a relatively short recap?
The Great Northern War
I have not! What I've said is that having finished the War of the Spanish Succession, I would like to learn about the Great Northern War, which is how I got onto Whitworth in the first place. It's a complicated twenty-year war involving tons of countries and principalities, and shifting alliances, and I barely know anything about it, so my recap will be sketchy in both quality and quantity, but here goes.
17th century Sweden was a significant military power, dominating the Baltic on both land and sea. In 1700, their neighbors, including Peter the Great in Russia, decide to take advantage of the fact that the new king is an inexperienced 18-yo and try to get some land back. Unfortunately, that 18-yo is Charles XII, who will be a famous, if ultimately unsuccessful, general.
He wins a bunch of battles. Storms through Poland, kicks August of Saxony off the throne and installs Stanislas Leszczynski. Stanislas' first reign of Poland only lasts a few years, just like his second reign in the 1730s.
Charles XII invades Russia, but as we discussed in the War of the Spanish Succession, ends up trying to live off the land during the great winter of 1708/1709. 1709, the year of Malplaquet, is also the year of Poltava, the big battle where Peter the Great's forces kick Charles' butt, and put an end to Sweden's superpower days. Also to Stanislas' days as King of Poland.
But the war is only halfway over, and more countries get involved. Brandenburg-Prussia and Hanover both want strategically located territory. Hanover wants Bremen-Verden to connect them to the Baltic.
FW wants Swedish Pomerania and especially Stettin.
He'll end up getting the southern part of Pomerania to go with the Pomerania he already owns. Take a look at the blue area on the map that's between the orange parts. That's the part he gets. You'll see Stettin, and if you go south along the river a bit, you'll see Gartz, Fredersdorf's hometown.
If you go way up north in the blue and off the to the west, you'll see Stralsund. The siege here is where FW met and decided he liked Seckendorff and Duhan. Duhan was so brave that FW immediately decided to enlist him as tutor for Fritz (Fritz is 3 years old at this point, in 1715), causing adult Fritz to snark about how unusual it is to engage a tutor in a trench. Also, FW totally missed the mark on this one too, as usual, thinking that a good soldier can't also be a cultured man of French manners! (I see the campaign to have Eugene be his role model failed.)
Then Whitworth and Rottembourg show up in Berlin the late 1710s, trying to get FW to reach terms with Sweden and Britain so affairs can be settled in the Baltic. In the end, he gets the parts of Swedish Pomerania he most wanted, and Hanover gets Bremen-Verden.
And one day, if all goes well, you may get a more in-depth dive into this war.
Re: The Great Northern War
Anyway: the first Northern European country to intervene in the 30 Years War on the Protestant side was Denmark, which was soundly beaten, but then the Swedes showed up, and their King Gustav Adolf was one of those hardcore military talents who came this close to conquering his way all the way to Vienna. (Wallenstein could then distract him not by defending Vienna but by scouring Saxony (allied to Gustav Adolf), which also threatened to cut him off from his supply lines, so the Swedes had to turn back. Gustav Adolf later died in battle, undefeated unlike Charles XII later, but he died. This didn't mean the Swedes left the war, though. By the time the war had ended Sweden had gone from also ran to top European power, definitely one of the most feared military powers, with a large say so in trade. Bear in mind that Sweden itself, the territory, had seen no battle, since most of the war took place in the HRE, i.e. mostly, though not exclusively, the German speaking principalities. And it had been so brutal and devastating that a third of the population was gone, most cities were at least partly damaged and had to be rebuild. You may or may not recall the Great Elector of Brandenburg (FW's grandfather) spent years as a child in Küstrin because it was one of the few fortresses his parents deemed safe. One reason why both FW and Fritz actively advertised for settlers was that the population was still recovering, even in the next century, from the long term effects of the 30 Years War devastation. Trying to get territory from Sweden, which had immensely profitted in terms of finances, power and economy from the same war, also falls into that larger context.
Re: The Great Northern War
Thanks, will keep this in mind if I manage to get the big picture of the Thirty Years' War *and* adequate German to be able to find the interesting parts quickly.
Meanwhile, Der Kaiser reist inkognito is perfect, and I'm about 1/3 of the way through! Slow going just because work has been so demanding lately, but exactly what I was looking for, thank you. <3