Advertisement

Lothar Franz von Schönborn and the Spanish Succession 1699–1701

Chapter
  • 36 Downloads
Part of the Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idees / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARMI, volume 5)

Abstract

The cloud, no larger than a man’s hand, which had been visible in the skies of Europe since the death of Felipe IV in 1665, had become by 1700 a lowering thunderhead which obscured the entire political horizon. Carlos II, the last, childless scion of the Spanish Habsburgs, died at Madrid on November 1 of the last year of the old century.1 The statesmen of Europe, who viewed the inevitable struggle which would follow the death of Carlos with grave misgivings, had been searching for over a generation for a peaceful means of avoiding such a struggle.2 But as had been the case so frequently, rational arrangements made by sensible men of good will were blown asunder by political irrationalities, human inconsistencies and unforeseen events beyond anyone’s control. The First Treaty of Partition, which William III and Louis XIV had devised as a way of avoiding a general war over the Spanish succession, was rendered irrelevant by the untimely but quite probably natural death of the youthful Electoral Prince of Bavaria, Joseph Ferdinand.3 A second treaty of partition, also the work of English and French diplomatists, failed to lessen the threat of war because the Emperor Leopold refused to have anything to do with it and asserted that he and his sons were the only legitimate heirs to the Spanish crown.4

Keywords

German State French Minister Standing Army Strict Neutrality Imperial Troop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    For the death of Carlos II: J. Nada [John Langdon Davies], Carlos the Bewitched (London: Jonathan Cape, 1963), pp. 251–257 and Postrimerías, Vol. III, pp. 489–490.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Lavisse, op. cit., Vol. 8, pt. I, pp. 67–68 for the Second Treaty; Postrimerías, Vol. IV, p. 403 for the declaration by the Emperor, 8 July 1699.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 117.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Schulte, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 99 and p. 156; Vol. II, p. 43; see also H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden (third ed., Leipzig: O. Lerner, 1896), Vol. X, pp. 282–283.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 119; Mentz, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 93–98 and Hantsch, op. cit., (1929), pp. 16 ff.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 119.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 120; Wild, op. cit., p. 106 and Schulte, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 521 ff.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 120.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 120; Lothar Gross, Die Geschichte der deutschen Reichshofkanzlei von 1559 bis 1806, (“Inventare Oesterreichischen Staatlicher Archive,” V, Vienna, 1933), 59 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    Gross, op. cit., (1933), p. 62.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Schulte, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 522; Hantsch, op. cit., (1929), p. 50.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., pp. 121–122.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    Christian Brodbeck, “Philip Wilhelm Reichsgraf zu Boyneburg 1656–1717,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für die Geschichte und Altertumskunde Erfurts, XLIV (1927), p. 99.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    Hantsch, op. cit., p. 36.Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    Ibid., p. 37.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    Hantsch, op. cit., p. 37.Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    Ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    Hantsch, op. cit., p. 39.Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 122; Zeller, op. cit., Vol. III, 2, pp. 82–83; Lavisse, op. cit., Vol. 8, 1, pp. 65–72 and Rassow, op. cit., pp. 335–336.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    Borodajkewycz, ibid.; Bittner-Gross, op. cit., p. 223.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    Schlick to Vienna, 27 April 1701, H. H. St. A., R. K. Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    Lothar Franz — Ludwig Wilhelm correspondence in M.E.A., Militaria, Fasc. 32.Google Scholar
  23. 28.
    Schulte, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 537.Google Scholar
  24. 29.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 123.Google Scholar
  25. 30.
    Ibid., citing M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  26. 31.
  27. 32.
    Lothar Franz to Friedrich Karl, July 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  28. 33.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 124.Google Scholar
  29. 34.
    Bittner, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 115 and Sante, op. cit., pp. 19 ff.Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 125.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    Hantsch, op. cit., p. 41.Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    Friedrich Karl to Lothar Franz, 26 May 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 125.Google Scholar
  34. 39.
  35. 40.
    Report of Friedrich Karl to Lothar Franz, undated, Vienna, Schönbornarchiv, Familienarchiv, Fasc. 86, No. 74Google Scholar
  36. 41.
    Report of Friedrich Karl to Lothar Franz, undated, Vienna, Schönbornarchiv, Familienarchiv, Fasc. 86, No. 69.Google Scholar
  37. 42.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 126.Google Scholar
  38. 43.
    Lothar Franz to the Electors of Trier and the Palatinate, 26 July 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  39. 44.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 126.Google Scholar
  40. 45.
    John Philip Francis to Lothar Franz, 7 August 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  41. 46.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 127.Google Scholar
  42. 47.
    Gudenus to Lothar Franz, 21 August 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  43. 50.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 128; report of Löwenstein-Wertheim to Leopold 13 August 1700, Reichskanzlei, Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  44. 52.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 128; L. Ennen, Der Spanische Erbfolgekrieg und der Kurfürst Johann Klement (Jena: Mauke, 1851), p. 62 and p. 65.Google Scholar
  45. 53.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., pp. 128–129.Google Scholar
  46. 54.
    Ibid., p. 129.Google Scholar
  47. 55.
  48. 56.
    Lothar Franz to Joseph Clement and Johann Hugo, 17 November 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  49. 57.
    Nada [John Langdon Davies], Carlos the Bewitched (London: Jonathan Cape, 1963), pp. 251–257. Don Carlos died on the afternoon of 1 November; news of his death was known in Paris by 9 November, but does not appear to have been known in Central Europe until around the middle of the month.Google Scholar
  50. 59.
    Joseph Clement to Lothar Franz, 1 December 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99. But of course he never withdrew itGoogle Scholar
  51. 60.
    Louis XIV notified the major German princes of his action on 21 November: M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  52. 61.
    J. H. Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole (London: The Cresset Press, 1956), I, 93–96; Ogg, op. cit., pp. 459–460.Google Scholar
  53. 62.
    Joseph Clement to Lothar Franz, 9 December 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fasc. 99.Google Scholar
  54. 64.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 131.Google Scholar
  55. 65.
  56. 66.
    Stadion to Lothar Franz, 13 December 1700, M.E.A., Korrespondenz, Fase. 99.Google Scholar
  57. 68.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 132.Google Scholar
  58. 69.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 133.Google Scholar
  59. 74.
    Wolf, op. cit., pp. 62–63.Google Scholar
  60. 75.
    O. Redlich, Die österreichische Grossmachtbildung in der Zeit Kaiser Leopolds I (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1921), p. 509.Google Scholar
  61. 76.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 135; B. Erdmannsdörffer, Deutsche Geschichte, Vol. II, pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar
  62. 77.
    R. Fester, “Franken und die Kreisverfassung,” Neujahrsblätter herausgegeben von der Gesellschaft für fränkische Geschichte, I (1906), passimGoogle Scholar
  63. 77a.
    H. H. Kaufmann, “Der Gedanke fränkischen Gemeinschaftsgefühls in Politik u. Geschichte des fränkischen Reichskreises,” Archiv des historischen Vereins von Unterfranken, LXIX (September 1934).Google Scholar
  64. 78.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 136. There is an account of the Heidenheim Association in M.E.A., Kreisakten, Fasc. 21. See also Kopp, op. cit., pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar
  65. 79.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 136.Google Scholar
  66. 81.
    Löwenstein-Wertheim to Leopold, 14 September and 7 December 1700, R.K., Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16. Bittner and Gross, op. cit., p. 140.Google Scholar
  67. 82.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 137.Google Scholar
  68. 83.
    H. Polster, “Der Markgraf Christian Ernst von Brandenburg-Bayreuth und seine Rolle in der Reichskriegen 1689–1701,” Erlanger Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte, XXIII (1935), 50.Google Scholar
  69. 84.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 137.Google Scholar
  70. 85.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 137.Google Scholar
  71. 87.
    Löwenstein-Wertheim to Leopold, 10 January 1701, R.K., Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  72. 88.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 138.Google Scholar
  73. 89.
    Polster, op. cit., p. 67.Google Scholar
  74. 90.
    Löwenstein-Wertheim to Leopold, 10 February 1701, R.K., Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  75. 91.
    Lothar Franz to Wratislaw, 12 March 1701, M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a. Rousseau de Chamoy was properly accredited only to the Imperial Diet.Google Scholar
  76. 92.
    Lothar Franz to Wratislaw, 9 February 1701, M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a.Google Scholar
  77. 93.
    Wild, op. cit., p. 107, citing Theatrum Europaeum, Vol. XVI, pp. 493–494.Google Scholar
  78. 94.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 139.Google Scholar
  79. 95.
    Lothar Franz to Wratislaw, 29 January and 23 February 1701, M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a. For the Emperor’s army at this time: Braubach, Eugen, Vol. I, pp. 315–316.Google Scholar
  80. 98.
    Lothar Franz to Wratislaw, 29 January and 23 February 1701, M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a.Google Scholar
  81. 99.
    A. Gaedeke, Die Politik Oesterreich in der spanischen Erbfolgefrage (2 vols.; Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1877), Vol. II, pp. 93, 96 and 98.Google Scholar
  82. 100.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 141.Google Scholar
  83. 101.
    Wratislaw to Lothar Franz, 10 February 1701, M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a.Google Scholar
  84. 102.
    Wratislaw to Lothar Franz, 4 March 1701, ibid. Google Scholar
  85. 103.
    Lothar Franz to Wratislaw, 23 March 1701, M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a.Google Scholar
  86. 104.
    Lothar Franz to Wratislaw, 6 April 1701, ibid. Google Scholar
  87. 106.
    G. F. Preuss, “König Wilhelm III, Bayern und die Grosse Allianz, 1701,” Historische Zeitschrift, N.F. LVII (1904), 198.Google Scholar
  88. 107.
    André Lebon, ed., Recueil des Instructions, (Paris: F. Alcan, 1889), Vol. VII, p. 108.Google Scholar
  89. 109.
    Preuss, op. cit., p. 224.Google Scholar
  90. 110.
    Heiss von Kockenheim to Lothar Franz, 5 April 1701, M.E.A., Korrespon-denz, Fasc. 51.Google Scholar
  91. 111.
    Lothar Franz to Wratislaw, 13 April 1701, M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a.Google Scholar
  92. 113.
    M.E.A., Friedensakten, Fasc. 84a.Google Scholar
  93. 115.
    Schlick to Leopold, 14 April 1701, R.K. Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  94. 116.
    Schlick to Leopold, 7 April 1701, R.K. Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  95. 117.
    Schlick to Leopold, 14 April 1701, ibid. Google Scholar
  96. 118.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
  97. 115.
    Schlick to Leopold, 14 April 1701, R.K. Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  98. 116.
    Schlick to Leopold, 7 April 1701, R.K. Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  99. 117.
    Schlick to Leopold, 14 April 1701, ibid. Google Scholar
  100. 118.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
  101. 120.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 146.Google Scholar
  102. 121.
    Postrimerías, Vol. V, p. 591, n. 1.Google Scholar
  103. 122.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 146.Google Scholar
  104. 123.
    Polster, op. cit., p. 70 ff.Google Scholar
  105. 124.
    Wratislaw to Lothar Franz, 14 June and 19 July 1701, M.E.A., Friedens-akten, Fasc. 84a; Löwenstein-Wertheim to Leopold, 25 June 1701, R.K. Berichte aus dem Reich, Fasc. 16.Google Scholar
  106. 125.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 147.Google Scholar
  107. 126.
    Löwenstein-Wertheim to Leopold, 2 May 1701; Max Emanuel had sold out to France months before and Joseph Clement had preceded him.Google Scholar
  108. 127.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 148.Google Scholar
  109. 128.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 148. The Emperor was, indeed, a belligerent, as his forces under Prince Eugene had invaded Upper Italy in May. Cf. Braubach, Eugen, Vol. I, pp. 315 ftGoogle Scholar
  110. 129.
    For the congress of Heilbronn; reports of Löwenstein-Wertheim, 28 August and 31 August 1701, loc. cit.; Kopp, op. cit., pp. 148 ff; S. Riezler, Geschichte Bayerns (2nd ed.; Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1927), pp. 519 ff.Google Scholar
  111. 129a.
    Polster, op. cit., pp. 73 ff.Google Scholar
  112. 130.
    Imperial instruction to Schlick, 5 August 1701, R.K., Instruktionen, Fasc. 13.Google Scholar
  113. 131.
    Report by Löwenstein-Wertheim, 24 May 1701.Google Scholar
  114. 132.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 148, from instruction of 18 May 1701, R.K. Weisungen ins Reich, Fasc. 7.Google Scholar
  115. 133.
    Instruction to Schlick, 14 August 1701.Google Scholar
  116. 134.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 148.Google Scholar
  117. 135.
    Stepney, the well-informed English envoy, believed that Schlick’s success with the southern princes broke the last links between Leopold and Max Emanuel, Preuss, op. cit., p. 218.Google Scholar
  118. 136.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 149.Google Scholar
  119. 137.
    Borodajkewycz, op. cit., p. 149. From the dispatches of Schlick, 1, 3, and 9 October 1701 and Lothar Franz’s declaration, 20 October, R. K. Moguntina, Fasc. 12a. Cf. Wild, op. cit., p. 107.Google Scholar
  120. 138.
    Bittner, op. cit., I, pp. 119 ff.Google Scholar
  121. 139.
    Schlick to Leopold, 9 October 1701.Google Scholar
  122. 140.
    Schlick to Leopold, 9 October 1701.Google Scholar
  123. 141.
    Wild, op. cit., p. 108.Google Scholar
  124. 144.
  125. 145.
  126. 146.
    G. A. Süss, “Geschichte des oberrheinischen Kreises… 1696–1714,” Zeit-schrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, LXIV (1955), 2. Heft, p. 391.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1973

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations