Why Europe accepted a Habsburg in Madrid but not a Bourbon

Why Europe accepted a Habsburg in Madrid but not a Bourbon

When Charles II died childless in 1700, Spain became the grand prize in a continental game. But the question was not who would take the Habsburg throne, rather which power could not afford to let it be France. Two centuries later, the answer remains the same: the balance of power. A Habsburg in Madrid was a familiar rival, broke and without a navy to speak of. A Bourbon with Louis XIV's inheritance was another matter entirely.

The antiestéticar of Louis XIV

The key lies not in hatred of France, but in the calculations of London and The Hague. Louis XIV had already shown his ambitions with the War of Devolution and the invasion of the Dutch Republic. If he also took Madrid, the Indies, Milan and Flanders, the English would face an imperial monopoly over the Atlantic. Against that, a Habsburg was a pushover of an opponent. The question was not whether the Austrians were better, but that they were less dangerous.

The nightmare of a new Charles V

The second question is a trick one. In 1700, Charles of Austria was the emperor's youngest son, and his brother Joseph I would take the imperial throne. But Joseph died in 1711 without an heir, and Charles became emperor. If he also won the war, the Empire of Charles V would be rebuilt two centuries late. The maritime powers would have taken five minutes to realize they were digging their own grave. By then, the change of circumstances had already made the British think twice.

Some argue that France, in fact, lost that war and bled itself dry defending the Spanish empire. The proof: the War of the Quadruple Alliance of 1717-1720, when the Bourbon they had placed in Madrid stood up to them. Others see in that conflict the origin of all modern ills. The fact is that history does not deal in conditionals. But if one thing is clear, it is that the balance of power was not a doctrine: it was a necessity.