![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnGonna go ahead and make this post even though Yuletide is coming...
But in the meantime, there has been some fic in the fandom posted!
Holding His Space (2503 words) by felisnocturna
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF, 18th Century CE Frederician RPF
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Relationships: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf/Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Characters: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf, Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Additional Tags: Protectiveness, Domestic, Character Study
Summary:
Using People (3392 words) by prinzsorgenfrei
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great/Hans Hermann von Katte
Characters: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great, Hans Hermann von Katte
Additional Tags: Fluff, Idiots in Love, reading plays aloud while gazing into each others eyes
Summary:
But in the meantime, there has been some fic in the fandom posted!
Holding His Space (2503 words) by felisnocturna
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF, 18th Century CE Frederician RPF
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Relationships: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf/Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Characters: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf, Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Additional Tags: Protectiveness, Domestic, Character Study
Summary:
Five times Fredersdorf has to stay behind - and one time Friedrich doesn't leave.
Using People (3392 words) by prinzsorgenfrei
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great/Hans Hermann von Katte
Characters: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great, Hans Hermann von Katte
Additional Tags: Fluff, Idiots in Love, reading plays aloud while gazing into each others eyes
Summary:
Friedrich had started to talk to him because he had thought of him as a bit of a ditz.
And now here he was. Here he was months later, bundled up in this very same man’s blankets with a cup of hot coffee in front of him, its scent mixing with that of Katte’s French perfume.
_
Fluffy One Shot about one traitorous Crown Prince and the sycophant he accidentally fell for.
Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-10 12:54 am (UTC)a) thought he'd better prevent the Saxons, French, Bavarians etc.
As noted in the end of my first reply, I *don't* think Saxony pounces anyway. Now that I've refreshed my memory some more on how Saxon foreign policy played out in 1741-1742, I'm now almost convinced they don't.
One, Saxony has a weak military and is geographically located between Prussia and Austria. Their entire foreign policy in the 1740s and 1750s revolved around being reluctant to take on *either* Prussia or Austria, because the risks were so high. Taking on both of them? I don't think it's happening.
Two, if you look at what Saxony actually did in 1741, it went like this:
Dec 1740-summer 1741: Play a waiting game to sell their services to the highest bidder, while sounding out both sides.
Early 1741: Sign a treaty with Austria to help protect it in return for a land bridge through Silesia, and try to get the treaty ratified. My sources are divided here on whether MT finally ratified it but took too long, or didn't ratify it after her envoy signed it (seems far more likely), but either way, that was the first move they made, and both my sources agree that it was only because the treaty didn't get ratified by the time the Saxons needed it ratified that they switched sides.
Summer 1741: Notice that Prussia, France, Bavaria, and Spain are allied, and if MT isn't handing out territory, there's no point to taking on that coalition. Switch sides and join coalition instead.
Summer 1742: Notice that the Austria-GB alliance is holding out pretty well, and Fritz has just signed a separate peace, so no more powerful ally next door. Also, Fritz kind of sucked as an ally even while he was in the war. Give up and drop out of the coalition, only to join the other side later for the Second Silesian War.
So Saxony joined more or less under pressure from their Prussian and Bavarian neighbors and dropped out as soon as Fritz did. If Fritz has gotten Silesia out of MT and they're allied, I don't think there's a coalition in the world big enough to make Saxony feel safe taking on both their neighbors.
Open question: if this MT is okay with handing out territory to protection rackets, how does she handle the competing racket of Saxony vs. Prussia wanting the same territory? Fritz wants all of Silesia, Saxony just wants a land bridge to Poland, but given the geography, it's going to be hard to give them both contiguous territory:
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-12 01:38 pm (UTC)Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-12 08:16 pm (UTC)Buuuuuut there‘s also the possibility that if extremely ooc MT proves she can be blackmailed and is handing out territory, August 3 might use the fact he‘s married to her older cousin and have a go at either the Habsburg heritage or the Imperial crown?
But that's not an AU, that's real life. They tried that, and they couldn't get enough recognition of August 3's claim. France had a longstanding history of supporting Bavaria as their anti-Habsburg catspaw in central Europe, and France, to the extent that it was going to recognize any non-Habsburg candidate*, decided to follow their usual foreign policy tradition and support the Wittelsbach claim. And there are three Wittelsbach electors, who vote as a bloc.
* Louis XV, if this isn't apocryphal, initially said, "As long they don't elect a Protestant, I don't care." Belle-Isle, and the now disgraced Chauvelin, and the rest of the strong anti-Habsburg faction during this period were pro-Wittelsbach, and had been going back into the 1720s and 1730s, when Charles VI was hawking his Pragmatic Sanction around Europe.
I feel like something other than MT giving away territory and Fritz potentially changing sides is going to have to change before Saxony can get the support it needs, inside or outside the Empire, to make a viable bid for emperor or Habsburg heir over Charles Albert.
What I think happens is very close to what happened in real life, because the considerations are still there: Saxony spends a long time working the diplomatic front, trying and failing to get recognition for its claims and/or an alliance that makes it feel safe enough to go to war. Which is what I think gives Fritz an opening to occupy it.
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-13 07:27 am (UTC)Looking through some of my sources on foreign policy (most of which I acquired for my 1720s interests, but which go up to the 1740s) I'm reminded of a couple of things.
1. The moment Charles VI dies, Fleury announces that the French will support the Pragmatic Sanction, i.e. MT's inheritance of the Habsburg domains, but will support the Wittelsbach candidate for the imperial crown. Partly because FS is a known opponent of France and Fleury thinks FS will use his position to try to get Lorraine back, partly because helping out Bavaria will honor French treaty obligations to Bavaria in agreements made in 1714, 1727, 1733, and 1738. (Like I said, long tradition.)
Fleury's MO for implementing all this is to send a known expert on German matters and supporter of Bavaria as envoy to the Imperial Diet, namely, Belle-Isle.
2. I had forgotten one key fact: Belle-Isle's wife was a cousin of the Elector of Bavaria. He had kept in close contact with the Bavarian court in the 1730s. That said, family ties aside, I think he was just straight up right that Fleury's belief that Charles Albert could become emperor without massive domains to draw on was unrealistic. Fleury's plan was to get Charles Albert elected purely via diplomacy, Belle-Isle thought the only way to make it happen was with a large land grab.
On the subject of our AU, I thought this was interesting. From Arthur Wilson's French Foreign Policy During the Administration of Cardinal Fleury 1726-1743,
Fleury wrote to the Elector of Bavaria on December 17, 1740:
The character of the king of Prussia appears to me so extraordinary and so indecipherable that I can not divine either what he wishes to do or what he thinks. He marches into Silesia and one can no longer doubt it. Whether he has in view seizing it or whether he does it in concert with the Archduchess is an impenetrable enigma for us and I can only inform you of my conjectures on that point.
Emphasis mine. I did not realize that there was actual speculation that Fritz and MT were colluding already at the beginning of the invasion!
Also, Wilson is among the historians who thinks Fritz was key in dragging France into the war against Fleury's wishes:
Had the King of Prussia been willing to accept France as a quiescent ally instead of an active one, the Cardinal might have been able to resist the enthusiasms of Belle-Isle. But, once having enticed the French into pour-parlers for an alliance, Frederick II insisted on active French military assistance as a sine qua non. The French court, by instructions to Valory dated February 22, 1741, consented to these demands, but when they arrived, Frederick II had not yet completed his shopping for alliances on the bargain counters of Europe, and the French alliance was left in suspense until June 1.
And there's this beautiful take on Fritz's personality by Fleury, which I had not seen before:
I confess that the king of Prussia, who is not in this situation [of not being rich or powerful enough for a land grab, like Bavaria], disquiets me more than any other. He has no order in his disposition: he listens to no counsel and takes his resolutions thoughtlessly, without having previously prepared measures suitable for success. Good faith and sincerity are not his favourite virtues and he is false in everything, even in his caresses. I even doubt whether he is sure in his alliances, because he has for guiding principle only his own interest. He will wish to govern and to have his own way without any concert with us, and he is detested throughout Europe.
The part that made me laugh is in bold. Also, FW is nodding vigorously at "he is false in everything."
I had also forgotten that France was planning to wage war on Great Britain overseas when Charles VI died, and Fleury had to put those plans on ice, and then dispense with them when Belle-Isle got his way over supporting the Wittelsbach land grab:
Not only is it clear that the Cardinal was profoundly dubious about the wisdom of Belle-Isle's forward policy in Germany, but also, from what is known of Fleury's plans for carrying on a maritime war in 1741, it must have occurred to him that Belle-Isle's expensive and adventuresome schemes were conceived with an absolute disregard of France's maritime interests, as a perusal of the memorials which Belle-Isle composed in January 1741, abundantly shows.
The indecision which resulted from this complex of conflicting considerations did not escape the public notice, and [Prussian ambassador to France] Chambrier reported to Frederick II on May 22, 1741:
It has been the entry of Your Majesty into Silesia which has made the Cardinal [i.e. Fleury] quit the pacific policy which he had designed. He hoped to arrange everything by negotiation and to do what he pleased with the court of Vienna by engaging it to throw itself into the arms of France, but, although he is obliged by the conduct of Your Majesty to change his system at present...
So had Fleury's speculation been right and Fritz's invasion was done with MT's collusion (or, you know, had she accepted the fait accompli immediately and made it look like her idea, which would be an interesting way of playing this)...Fleury still sounds like he'd prefer not to go to war for Bavarian claims in early 1741. And without Frederick being Belle-Isle's biggest supporter and the successful negotiations in Germany being what led Belle-Isle to success...whether a general war breaks out might come down to whether one or more of the following happens.
a) Bavaria is willing to make a land grab alone.
b) Bavaria manages to get France into an alliance even without Fritz's help.
c) France, Bavaria, and Saxony all reluctantly decide not to go to war, but when Charles Albert gets elected, MT refuses to recognize the election and goes to war, occupying Bavaria, thus triggering a war (because France would probably come to their aid at that point), and possibly giving Fritz that excuse to occupy Saxony and/or Bohemia.
Macaulay actually said that before Fritz invaded, it was looking like Europe would respect the Pragmatic Sanction, and that there wouldn't have been a war of the Austrian Succession without him. I was skeptical at the time, but now having dug more into the internal politics of each country, I'm less skeptical. Saxony and France each have reasons not to go to war over Habsburg territory. Bavaria's unlikely to act alone. Spain would have gone to war regardless, but only in Italy. Russia was in support of Austria and the Pragmatic Sanction (and, like, genuinely, not reluctantly), and without Fritz to pressure ihs ally France into funding its client state Sweden into invading Russia to distract them from coming to MT's aid, you might have:
1. GB, Prussia, Saxony, and Russia on MT's side.
2. France neutral.
3. Spain fighting in Italy.
4. Bavaria isolated.
Buuuut, given your point about internal support,
Huh. The more I think about it, the more I like Machiavellian!MT going, "Okay, Fritz, you win this round. But one, you have to pretend it's my idea. Two, you have to share Silesia with Saxony (and if you fall out over it, so much the better). And three, if the Wittelsbach guy gets elected and I don't get to participate in the election, you have to help me invade Bavaria, because that's an invalid election."
And Fritz going, "I just *know* that evil man Brühl is plotting with Bavaria. I'll 'help' you, fair damsel!" *conquers Saxony*
Everyone: *starts eyeing Fritz nervously if they aren't already*
European balance of power considerations: *kick in*
Russia: *gets involved*?
Anyway, I still think MT was better off doing what she did and going for good PR, but it is fun to try to come up with ways she could have tried to make it work some other way.
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-15 05:18 am (UTC)Good faith and sincerity are not his favourite virtues
Hee! This made me laugh too.
and he is false in everything, even in his caresses.
I imagine he meant this figuratively, but of course my brain wants to treat this literally :D TELL ME MORE FLEURY :D
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-15 05:31 am (UTC)Come to think of it, I feel like insincere "caress" shows up a lot in discussions of Fritz. I can think of two other examples. (One is Voltaire, of course, but one is not.)
ETA: Actually, all three I can think of are French: Voltaire, Guibert, and now Fleury. Does Valori? I bet he does. I still want to learn French so I can read his memoirs.
Good faith and sincerity are not his favourite virtues
I am reminded of the Bisset (editor of the Andrew Mitchell papers) comment that Selena quoted for us:
He himself is a bit more snarky about Fritz than Mitchell - there's a footnote to a Mitchell letter where Mitchell writes that in Fritz' breast there are competing "a most delicate sense of honor" with "the utmost capriciousness"; the footnote snarks that evidently Mitchell didn't know Fritz as well in 1758 as he thought since clearly as opposed to such men as Mitchell himself or the worthy brothers Keith (the Scots), honor and Fritz were at best nodding aquaintances, if not altogether strangers.
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-15 07:08 pm (UTC)I bet Valori wrote something similar, because Fleury clearly is basing this on the envoy reports he‘s gotten. I mean, the later Scottish-French envoy had a similar opinion of Fritz, but he‘s too late to influence Fleury in 1741.
Seckendorff to Eugene has Fritz as a lying liar who lies early on, but minus the caresses. (You know, in the „if you think the kid is going to show gratitude to us, he won‘t, he‘s got a lousy character“ letter to which Eugene replied to try and reconcile FW and Fritz anyway.) Meanwhile, Suhm would insist Fritzian caresses to be sincere! Hm - Manteuffel perhaps? After all, I seem to recall Seckendorff the nephew‘s report said Fritz acted „tenderly“ towards Le Diable in the brief heyday of their „friendship“ (you know,l when Fritz was handing out golden Socrates heads to more than one person and swore he was totalyl the Alciabades in those relationships….
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-16 03:25 am (UTC)Yep, what I was thinking!
Meanwhile, Suhm would insist Fritzian caresses to be sincere!
Hee! So, funny thing, I was looking at the Münchow letter yesterday, and I laughed because he had Fritz caressing him, also sincerely!
Hm - Manteuffel perhaps? After all, I seem to recall Seckendorff the nephew‘s report said Fritz acted „tenderly“ towards Le Diable in the brief heyday of their „friendship“ (you know,l when Fritz was handing out golden Socrates heads to more than one person and swore he was totalyl the Alciabades in those relationships….
Oooh, you're right! Huh, I really want that character sketch I ordered! Go faster, Deutsche Post! (Also, as I recall, Manteuffel was going to do a "positive traits" and "negative traits" essay, but, being wordy like me, he only managed to finish the positive traits before Fritz became king, so he never wrote the negative traits (because they became immediately obvious???) one.) Anyway, I wonder if he said anything about the caresses!
Btw, the Guibert quote, courtesy of
Guibert first saw the king at the parade on June 16th: "On horseback one would think he was a centaur," he notes in his diary [...] June 19th: “Bought his image: true to the clothes, the costume; small sword of copper; cane decorated with diamonds; also always has several very rich snuffboxes with him, pulling out three or four different ones while I was chatting with him; has thousands of them in store, a strange contrast to his simplicity otherwise. I come back to his picture: resembles him, as they say, when he is at the head of his troops, but doesn't resemble the prince who spoke to me at all. Result of the peculiar changeability of his physiognomy: it caresses to the right and threatens to the left. This changeability is present in his mind, in his character, in an abundance of details of his behavior; It is never the same, you never know what it will be: but this bizarness, these apparent inconsistencies always have a principle. If one could observe him closely, one would find the origin of ideas that sometimes makes him act the opposite. Marquis d'Argens said that he had never seen anyone whose inconsistencies were more consistent and considered."
Which reminded me not a little of Lafayette's 1785 quote, which I've shared before:
"To Potsdam I went to make my bow to the king, and notwithstanding what I had heard of him, could not help being struck with the dress and appearance of an old, broken, dirty corporal, covered all over with Spanish snuff, with his head almost leaning on one shoulder, and fingers almost distorted by the gout; but what surprises me much more is the fire, and sometimes the softness, of the most beautiful eyes I ever saw, which give as charming an expression to his physiognomy, as he can take a rough and threatening one at the head of his troops."
Consistent in his inconsistencies indeed!
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-16 08:01 am (UTC)Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-16 08:44 am (UTC)British secretary Guy-Dickens: Fritz, please don't run away. We don't want you in England.
Fritz: I promise not to run away if Dad doesn't take me along when he goes on his trip, if you give me money. I have lots of debts, don't tell Dad.
Guy-Dickens: How much do you need?
*later*
Fritz: Ha! I told him double the amount I actually needed for my debts, so I could use the rest as running-away money. And I never promised not to run away if Dad did take me on the trip. Loophole FTW!
*even later*
Fritz: You may say sincerity isn't my favorite virtue, but you need to realize it started with me being afraid my father was literally going to choke me to death, and no one wanted to help.
[Peter: Me! I wanted to help! Why was I not special when I came back?
Spaen: The King has an excellent memory right up to 1730.]
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-16 08:47 am (UTC)Doris Ritter publically whipped all over Spandau as a whore despite being a virgin, put into the workhouse, and later getting zero acknowledgment other than Voltaire making a quip about her haggard looks and her husband getting the 18th century equivalent of a taxi driver license: MEN!
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-16 08:53 am (UTC)But Peter remains unique in that he's the only one who, as far as we know, didn't try to talk Fritz out of it, didn't need to be lied to, and put everything he had into helping Fritz escape. Admittedly, we don't know what conversations they were having in 1729. But Peter remained pretty convinced about the need to escape for at least a whole year, through at least 3 attempts!
(It's not zero-sum, they ALL had it bad. Wilhelmine, Doris, Peter, Katte, Spaen, Duhan, all of them. FW WHY)
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-19 06:18 am (UTC)Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-19 08:23 am (UTC)He used to call his monkey Frederic II and call Fritz "Luc", after his monkey Luc, and say that Fritz was "like a monkey, he bites the hand that caresses him."
I'm quite sure there must also be a Voltaire quote about Fritz's own caresses being insincere somewhere, though! It's too good to pass up!
L'autre moi-meme
Date: 2022-11-20 04:33 am (UTC)1. Fleury and Chauvelin. To quote from my original writeup:
Chauvelin: I'm Fleury's second-in-command in 1730. Everyone, even my enemies (and unlike Fleury, I have a lot), agrees I'm intelligent and hard-working. My specialty is public law. In 1727, I got the job of foreign minister, along with a lot of other important positions, at the relatively young age of 42, without any diplomatic or administrative experience, because Fleury wanted someone to work closely with.
I play bad cop to his good cop. It works especially well with British ambassadors! Any time Fleury does anything they don't like, he blames me. Since I'm personally abrasive and outspoken about my political opinions, and he's very soft-spoken and plays his cards close to his chest, they believe him!
This will lead not just British ambassadors but also future historians to believe that I had way more power and influence than I probably did. But eventually, historians will come to the conclusion that Fleury made the policy while I implemented it, and that we just did a really, really good good-cop bad-cop act that fooled everyone for centuries. Hey, Fleury called me his "autre moi-même"!
...
Chauvelin: Meanwhile, though. Even as second-in-command and appointed successor, my ambitions are outstripping my position. I really just want Fleury's job. I will conduct secret correspondence with a number of the ambassadors who report to me in other countries. One of which is a certain Count Rottembourg.
Unfortunately, Fleury catches on to all this conspiring, and I get dismissed and exiled in disgrace in 1737. I make a bid for his job in 1743 after Fleury dies, but it fails. I die a private citizen and an object lesson in hubris.
To this day (2022), my papers have never been found, despite Fleury ordering a search for them after my fall. This makes it hard to tell what I was thinking, which gives the writer of fiction a lot of leeway.
2. Belle-Isle and his brother.
So, Belle-Isle was this ambitious, charming guy whose motto in life was "THINK BIG." Eveline Cruickshanks' description:
Something should now be said of the character of the comte de Belle-Isle as it appeared to his contemporaries. The evidence is conflicting, for he possessed in high degree the capacity of attracting unbounded devotion or bitter hatred. The best and most vivid portrait of him is drawn by Saint-Simon, who was a friend of his. Saint-Simon described Belle-Isle as handsome, tall, a polished courtier with as much honesty as inordinate ambition allows. He possessed the very qualities necessary to serve his ambition: he was very adaptable and able to take just the right tone with everyone. His great personal charm, which was the main trait of his character, opened many doors to him, and he took full advantage of it: 'He wanted to please the masters, and the servants, the bourgeoisie and the parish or seminary priest when chance brought him to meet some, a fortiori the general and his squire, the ministers and the last clerks'. Throughout his life he made a practice of carefully selecting those who could help him, conciliating them, and then obtain the maximum advantage from them. He never made, adds Saint-Simon, 'a step, a visit, even a party or a trip of pleasure except by considered choice, for the advancement of its sights and its fortune, and, en route, applies himself unceasingly to informing himself of everything, without seeming to do so at all'. He was able to pursue the most complicated schemes and intrigues without ever crossing the threads. To these talents, Belle-Isle added a vivid imagination and an enormous capacity for work. He could never be still: 'he asked nothing better than to act in whatever way he could. His life was spent in continual activity. I heard him say that for thirty-four years he slept only four hours a night.' The danger of his temperament was a propensity to be carried away by his imagination.
But, he has an autre moi-meme to balance him out!
The career of the comte de Belle-Isle may be compared to that of a fine ship riding the high seas. The ship, however, was not without ballast. The steadying influence was provided by his younger brother, the chevalier de Belle-Isle. It is difficult for the chevalier to emerge as anything more than a mere shadow of his brother; yet his role was an important one. The chevalier was in some respects like the count, but in others the exact opposite. He was not as handsome nor as sympathetic. He had a rather biting and contradictory manner, but could please when he was so minded. He was more intelligent: 'nevertheless more accurate and discerning than his brother and incomparably more difficult to deceive, perhaps also less perfectly honest man, but much more capable and intelligent in all sorts of affairs'. His judgement, was much cooler and more restrained than that of his brother. It was fortunate for the count that from the earliest times, the chevalier had subordinated his own career to his. Indeed Belle-Isle habitually referred to the chevalier as ’un autre moi-meme'. The chevalier took over the detailed administration of their financial, legal and domestic affairs. 'The union of these two brothers made of the two but one heart and one soul, without the slightest lacuna, and in the most perfect indivisibility, and everything common between them, goods, secrets, advice, without division or reserve, the same will in everything, the same undivided domestic authority, all their lives.' The combination, as contemporaries recognised, was fortunate. D'Argenson wrote of Belle-Isle 'he has a sensible and ponderous brother; without this brother, he would be a madman; without him, his brother would be an ordinary man'. Frederick II, when he knew him, remarked: 'his genius was vast, his mind brilliant, his courage audacious; his metier was his passion, but he gave himself up to his imagination; he made the plans, his brother drew them up; the marshal was called imagination, and his brother common sense.'
Re: L'autre moi-meme
Date: 2022-11-22 05:04 pm (UTC)But eventually, historians will come to the conclusion that Fleury made the policy while I implemented it, and that we just did a really, really good good-cop bad-cop act that fooled everyone for centuries.
But also (as you can tell by how much I adore Voltaire) I super admire people who trolled future historians for ages :D That's awesome!
Unfortunately, Fleury catches on to all this conspiring, and I get dismissed and exiled in disgrace in 1737. I make a bid for his job in 1743 after Fleury dies, but it fails. I die a private citizen and an object lesson in hubris.
Whoops, Chauvelin.
'The union of these two brothers made of the two but one heart and one soul, without the slightest lacuna, and in the most perfect indivisibility, and everything common between them, goods, secrets, advice, without division or reserve, the same will in everything, the same undivided domestic authority, all their lives.' The combination, as contemporaries recognised, was fortunate.
This is amazing. I am such a fan of super close sibling/friend relationships like this <3 (I know, in this fandom it's mostly my love for the dysfunctional sibling relationships that's in play, but I love these too. Basically, I just love sibling/friend relationships with Strong Feelings, and even more if there's a vassal/lord loyalty relationship added into the mix!)
Re: L'autre moi-meme
Date: 2022-11-22 07:16 pm (UTC)Basically, I just love sibling/friend relationships with Strong Feelings, and even more if there's a vassal/lord loyalty relationship added into the mix!)
Oh, then do I have a brother-brother relationship for you! It always makes me sad that they're secondary/tertiary characters, they're among my favorite brother-brother relationships ever.
From Diana Gabaldon's Outlander (historical fiction revolving around the
Jacobites in the 1740s), I give you Colum and Dougal MacKenzie (Jacob is their father's name):
“There was a wee bit o’ confusion when Jacob died, d’ye see. Colum was heir to Leoch, to be sure, but he…” The lawyer paused, looking ahead and behind to see that no one was close enough to listen. The man-at-arms had ridden forward, though, to catch up with some of his mates, and a good four lengths separated us from the wagon-driver behind.
“Colum was a whole man to the age of eighteen or so,” he resumed his story, “and gave promise to be a fine leader. He took Letitia to wife as part of an alliance with the Camerons—I drew up the marriage contract,” he added, as a footnote, “but soon after the marriage he had a bad fall, during a raid. Broke the long bone of his thigh, and it mended poorly.”
I nodded. It would have, of course.
“And then,” Mr. Gowan went on with a sigh, “he rose from his bed too soon, and took a tumble down the stairs that broke the other leg. He lay in his bed close on a year, but it soon became clear that the damage was permanent. And that was when Jacob died, unfortunately.”
The little man paused to marshal his thoughts. He glanced ahead again, as though looking for someone. Failing to find them, he settled back into the saddle.
“That was about the time there was all the fuss about his sister’s marriage too,” he said. “And Dougal…well, I’m afraid Dougal did not acquit himself so verra weel over that affair. Otherwise, d’ye see, Dougal might have been made chief at the time, but ’twas felt he’d not the judgment for it yet.” He shook his head. “Oh, there was a great stramash about it all. There were cousins and uncles and tacksmen, and a great Gathering to decide the matter.”
“But they did choose Colum, after all?” I said. I marveled once again at the force of personality of Colum MacKenzie. And, casting an eye at the withered little man who rode at my side, I rather thought Colum had also had some luck in choosing his allies.
“They did, but only because the brothers stood firm together. There was nae doubt, ye see, of Colum’s courage, nor yet of his mind, but only of his body. ’Twas clear he’d never be able to lead his men into battle again. But there was Dougal, sound and whole, if a bit reckless and hot-headed. And he stood behind his brother’s chair and vowed to follow Colum’s word and be his legs and his sword-arm in the field. So a suggestion was made that Colum be allowed to become laird, as he should in the ordinary way, and Dougal be made war chieftain, to lead the clan in time of battle.”
And there's another passage that's just as good, but it's spoilery, so I'll let you decide if you want spoilers or not.
ETA: But I really want to share it with you, so please want spoilers!
Re: Saxony and the War of the Austrian Succession
Date: 2022-11-12 10:46 pm (UTC)If it's early 1741 and MT has just signed over Silesia to Fritz in return for protection, Saxony is thinking, "On the one hand, she's an easy target," but "On the other hand, she now has a powerful ally."
I'm pretty sure Saxony's not going to get the recognition they need for their claims either to the bulk of the Habsburg lands or to the emperorship, which reduces the benefits in this cost-benefit analysis.
What they're likely to realistically get is a *share* of the Habsburg lands, if they join a coalition to divvy said lands up. But of all the parties in the coalition, Saxony stands to lose the most, since they're wedged in between Prussia and Austria. Fritz is not realistically invading France tomorrow, nor Spain nor even Bavaria.
So that leads us to your second point: "Fritz won't care as long as he has Silesia?" That's the point on which I felt strongly that the real-life considerations are still at play here in this AU with an OOC MT: Prussia and Saxony have been in a zero-sum power game since the end of the 17th century. Saxony's number one goal is not "share of Habsburg lands" but "part of Silesia," and their number two goal is "If we can't have Silesia, at least don't let Prussia get Silesia," and number three goal is "Don't let Prussia have a land bridge through Poland to join up Brandenburg with Prussia proper." And Prussia's interests in that part of Europe are exactly reversed.
For all August the Strong's and FW's drinking clubs, there were always political tensions, and their countries were always seen in some respects as natural rivals. And this isn't even August the Strong and FW any more, this is Fritz and Brühl. So I don't think there's any scenario in which Saxony believes it can invade MT with impunity from Fritz. They have to know that Fritz's incentives here are:
1. Keep Saxony down.
2. Make at least a nominal effort in the direction of defending MT from *someone*, otherwise the treaty granting him Silesia is invalid. He can make a lukewarm effort, he can sign a separate peace early, he can be duplicitous, but he has to at least make an early appearance of attacking *someone*.
3. Win everlasting fame and glory in battle, especially if Silesia was so easy it makes him feel unstoppable, and also like defeating a woman wasn't anything to write home about.
4. Saxony is right next door, and of all MT's enemies, the easiest to accomplish (2) and (3) on.
IRL, Fritz was willing to agree to Saxony (and Bavaria and France and Spain) partitioning Habsburg domains as long as he needed the alliance, because MT wasn't letting him have Silesia. With Silesia, Macaulay's quip is highly accurate, and the Saxons have to know that or at least fear it, given where they live.
But. I thought of a way this could play out!
In this scenario where MT is handing out territory in return for protection, she's going to get the exact same offer from Saxony that she got in real life: "Give us a land bridge through Silesia, linking Saxony and Poland, and we'll help protect you." She came pretty close to doing it in real life, the treaty was definitely signed. And she hedged it all around with conditions like, "You can have right of passage during August's lifetime [I think], but I still own it," etc.
Earlier in this conversation, you may remember I pointed this out, put up a map, and said she's going to have a hard time satisfying both Prussian and Saxon demands here.
While out for a walk today, I realized I wasn't thinking Machiavellian-ly enough. She doesn't *need* to satisfy both their demands. It's in her best interests not to, in fact.
So if MT wanted to sacrifice some territory in return for protection, she could maybe play for time by granting August and Fritz rights and territory in Silesia that brought them into conflict with each other ("You can have Silesia, but you have to let August march through it whenever he wants and not charge tolls," maybe?), while insisting that they have to help her fight off the rest of her enemies.
I agree it's not great PR, but if OOC MT plays her cards right, she might either get:
a) Limited help with fighting off Bavaria and France, from two allies that have no interest in seeing Bavaria or France become more powerful, while those two allies fight each other,
or
b) No help with fighting off Bavaria and France, at which point she can declare the treaties invalid and go back to fighting openly for Silesia.
She's still better off doing what she did, for the reasons you pointed out. But aiming to play Prussia and Saxony, with their opposing geopolitical interests, off against each other would at least have been interesting for a salon to learn about in the future!