HIST 102 #17 - The European State System 1715-1748

Hello, welcome back to our lecture series for Western Civilization 102. We left off on our last lecture discussing the first Scientific Revolution. We're going to switch gears a bit with today's lecture and discuss the European State system from the year 1715 to the year 1748. So, I'm basically going to give you a little bit of an overview. You will obviously learn more detail and more information with Dr. Robinson's upcoming lecture today.

Uh, so we're discussing basically the early 18th century and, um, you know, Europeans are creating this this state system here between these years. For example, in England, you will hear about a new dynasty that has taken over, the Hanoverians. The Stuart Dynasty is no longer in charge over there, and you have the Georges. Of course, you probably know the famous George III, who was the English king during the American Revolution, of course, but his predecessors, George I, George II, they had quite a lot of problems with the Stuart Pretenders that are coming back. Because remember that, um, you know, we had the English Civil War and we've had the Glorious Revolution that that kicked out James II, who was a Stuart, and then you eventually have this new dynasty here of the Hanoverians.

So, and in France, we've had a whole lecture discussing Louis XIV. Well, he died in 1715, and his son, who was, oh, I want to say maybe like five years old, I mean, very, very young, will take over in 1715. Um, but obviously he cannot officially take over because he is a small child, five years old. His grandson, actually, Louis XV. Now, Louis XV is young, so he will have to have a regent as well, and we'll find out what's happening as far as France is concerned during this time period of the European State system, but no more Louis XIV.

Also, we've noticed, um, kind of leading up into this time period, we have the end of the War of the Spanish Succession with the Treaty of Utrecht, which was in 1713-14. So we're picking up after that as well. We've actually had quite a lot of warfare that's taking place in that second half of Louis XIV's reign, and so Europe's coming off a lot of this fighting now, starting with the year 1715. We'll find out if they get a break from all of the warfare and the fighting that's that's been taking place, and if they can, if Europe can try and find some kind of balance of power. Well, they're not, but if they can try and find that, because we will have other wars taking place.

You have Peter the Great, very famous. Usually, I don't call them great for nothing. Peter the Great in Russia, who is trying to westernize Russia. He had actually traveled in the West as a young man incognito, although it's said that he was extremely tall. Most people were not very tall in this at this time in history, but I don't know, six feet or so. He was pretty tall for the time. Uh, five feet was probably more average. And, you know, he learned about shipbuilding and learned about some of the Western capitalism that was taking place, and he brings that back to Russia. So when he takes over, he does quite a lot in westernizing Russia, and, uh, so he's actually a very interesting figure as well, taking over around this time period.

And Prussia, which is, if you look on a map today and you look for Berlin, Germany, this is where Prussia is. It's in Northern Europe. In Prussia, we have the Williams, the, I call them, or the Frederick Williams. We have quite a lot of them, quite a few of the Williams or Frederick Williams in Prussia at this time. In fact, Frederick William I ruled right after 1750, around 1715, and up until 1740. So Frederick William I was the ruler in Prussia pretty much for this whole time period for for this lecture, upcoming lecture, and he was focused on the military in Prussia. In fact, he was known as the Sergeant King. Everybody had to serve in the military. Prussia was was more of a military state, very powerful army. And when he dies, Frederick II, or Frederick the Great, we have a lot of greats here at this time, Peter the Great in Russia, Frederick the Great in Prussia. Frederick the Great will get involved in a war with Austria.

And as far as Austria is concerned, you can remember the name of Maria Theresa. She was now the ruler of Austria, and at least toward the, um, the end here, the mid-18th century. And her father was so worried that she would have problems because she was his heir, and she was a female. If you didn't get that, you know, hence the name Maria. And so he spent a lot of his reign getting the nobility to accept her as his heir. It was called the Pragmatic Sanction. But when she does come in and take over, Frederick the Great will challenge her, invading a place called Silesia. We have the War of the Austrian Succession that ends in 1748, which obviously, of course, is, you know, the ending date for this lecture as well.

So we still have warfare, okay? It's not the kind of warfare like we experienced and that you learned about with the Thirty Years' War, the last of those great religious wars fought in Europe. Warfare in the 18th century is is more limited in nature. It's not as religious, like we're not seeing Calvinists versus Catholics or or Huguenots and Catholics or Lutherans and Catholics. We're not really seeing that. Warfare in the 18th century is more limited in nature. It's like, I want that piece of land, we fight, you get it, you don't get it, you make peace, and you move on. So definitely a new style of fighting here in the 18th century, but we still have fighting taking place, okay?

We also will see a diplomatic revolution taking place. Alliances will start shifting during this time period. Enemies will become friends, and friends will become enemies. Because the War of the Austrian Succession is not, I mean, we eventually have the Seven Years' War, which if you were studying American history, it would be called the French and Indian War. Um, we also have the American Revolution. That's not, you know, not too far away, if you were studying American history as well. So warfare does not end. Um, it's different, but it's not over yet.

So that's just basically a little overview of the different, uh, rulers and some of the major countries in Europe, and, um, kind of leading us eventually into the Enlightenment, which was the Age of Reason here in the 18th century, and of course, another lecture that we'll talk about too, is the enlightened absolutists, these monarchs who are not divine right absolutists, but enlightened absolutists. So we'll eventually, as we go through these lectures, learn a little bit more about that as well. So let's hear more about the European State system from 1715 to 1748.

The period following the death of Louis XIV in 1715 is one that historians like to refer to as the emergence of the European State system, particularly between 1715 and 1748. We see a new international structure in Europe that is dominated by a handful of states, usually referred to as the great powers. Among the great powers, there were three that might be thought of as established great powers in Europe. The first of these was Austria, what was really left of the old Holy Roman Empire as far as Habsburg power in Eastern Europe was concerned. The second was Great Britain, and the third, not surprisingly, was France. In addition, there were two other great powers that might be thought of as rising in this period. One was the northeastern German nation of Prussia, and the fifth was Russia, hitherto a primarily Asiatic power that began to focus more on Europe in this period.

In addition to the great powers, there were a number of states that might be referred to as lesser powers. Among these were several that had been great powers at one time, but that were now in a state of decline. One of these was the Netherlands, which previously had taken advantage of its economic might and its great navy to occupy great power status, but was now in a long-standing decline. Another was the Ottoman Empire. A third was the nation of Spain, which, although it still held a great colonial empire, no longer could compete with the great powers in European politics. And the last was Sweden.

There are also several states that might be considered secondary powers among the lesser powers. Denmark would be one of those, Poland would be another, and Portugal would be a third. And finally, there were several small states that nonetheless occupied an important enough place in European diplomacy that they are worthy of consideration from time to time. These include Bavaria, the state of Saxony, the state of Savoy, and Switzerland.

This age was a great age of kings. Kings in the period of the 18th century would prove to be the optimum ruler, so to speak. Grand Dukes, Dukes, Counts, Electors, and what have you ruled over states that were really too small to compete. Empires, on the other hand, in the 18th century proved to be too large and too diffuse to function effectively, although we do see one exception to this with the czars in the Russian Empire. The Ottoman Empire, however, as as I just mentioned, was becoming weak. The Holy Roman Empire was really a fiction, reduced now to the power of Austria. And kings found themselves in the ideal role in the royal hierarchy as the most effective rulers. Furthermore, they came to be identified very closely with their realms, and in the international system, they offered the most effective resistance to larger empires.

Another thing that is characteristic of the emergence of the European State system is the gradual shift in the interest of states from dynastic pursuits to the interests of the state per se, that is, doing what's good for France, for example, as opposed to what's just good for the Bourbon dynasty. Another shift that occurs over the course of the 18th century, gradually, of course, is a shift in the rationale for absolutism from the old divine right absolutism, which saw the king as chosen by God for his role, to a new emphasis upon enlightened absolutism based upon the ruler's ability to rule in a reasoned fashion.

The state, of course, is an abstraction, but there are several things that we can use to identify it. One, of course, is territory. Another is the people of the state, and a third is the type of government. In the 18th century, with rare exceptions, people still had little role in government itself, although they might define the nationality of a state. Kings, on the other hand, became the symbols of the community associated with the territory and were in a particularly good position at this time because most early modern kings had reduced the power of the church in their territories, reduced the power of legislatures, with the exception of the British Parliament, reduced the power of municipalities like the powerful cities in Spain, for example, and reduced the power of the aristocracy. Royal bureaucracy proved to be more effective, more extensive, and in many cases, more fair, and therefore the efficiency of kings and of royal bureaucracies made them very popular.

One of the paradoxes of this period, nonetheless, is that at the same time that kings were assuming, uh, the upper hand to perhaps a greater degree than in a long time, there was also a kind of aristocratic resurgence in much of Europe. There was a symbiotic relationship between monarchs and the aristocracy. It's really necessary, if you think about it, if society is going to be organized into a hierarchy, if there is a rationale for the king being above everybody else, there is also a rationale for the aristocracy being above everyone but the king. You take away the rationale for one, and you take away the rationale for the other. But by and large, the aristocracies of this period were loyal to kings, unlike the way they had been frequently in the Middle Ages. And in a lot of ways, the aristocracy were modernized, so to speak, that is, incorporated into the royal bureaucracy. Uh, the fact that they were aristocrats meant that they commanded deference and were able to enforce policy more effectively. So, for example, in Britain, you have aristocrats and the gentry just below them in Parliament. In France, you have a new nobility associated with government functions. In Russia, the aristocracy frequently controlled the succession. And there are exceptions in only a handful of states, notably Austria, Prussia, and Spain, where the aristocracy did not have a great deal of authority.

Another characteristic of the 18th century that we see emerging after the demise of Louis XIV is a change in the way diplomacy is conducted and a change in the way that diplomacy is rationalized or explained. There is a new emphasis upon maintaining stability in Europe and also in maintaining equilibrium. This is very much a reaction against the success that Louis XIV had long enjoyed. Louis XIV had become so powerful at the peak of his power in France that he had posed a real threat to all the rest of Europe. There was a real possibility at one time of Louis XIV actually dominating the entire continent, and nobody, not even the French, wanted to see that come back. So in the 18th century, there is an emphasis upon balance of power, that is, among the great powers. The idea is that none of the five should be very much more powerful than the others, otherwise that might create an imbalance that could lead to another Louis XIV. Now, what the lesser powers did was much less of a concern as far as the great powers were concerned. The five great powers regarded the lesser powers as basically their tools to use as they pleased.

Another idea that became prominent in the 18th century was the concept of limited warfare. One way to put that in perspective is this: in the 16th and 17th centuries, at least one of the reasons that people went to war was over religion. As we've seen, that's never the only reason, but religion was often a very large part of the battles that took place in that period. Therefore, in any given war, both sides tended to see themselves as fighting for God. But if you believe God is on your side, then presumably you assume that the devil is on the other side, and you don't compromise with the devil. You fight until you win, or you fight until you are utterly defeated, no matter what the cost may be. There is no room for compromise. In the 19th and 20th centuries, people fought for ideals, ideals like the nation, ideals like liberty, and once again, you don't compromise when you're fighting for ideals like that. You either win when you're fighting against Nazism or communism, or you fight until you're defeated. But in the 18th century, wars were fought neither for God nor for ideals. They were fought for land, for trade, and for colonies, and you don't fight to the death for those things. For one thing, if you are annihilated, you don't live to enjoy whatever you may have won temporarily. But the other thing is, this is all really about what is profitable. Therefore, when nations went to war for land, trade, or colonies, they either fought until they got what they wanted, or they fought until it became too expensive, and they stopped. So, limited warfare. Another way that warfare is limited is that it's limited in the sense that there are limited objectives, and nothing like revolution or freedom or God or what have you that you're going after.

Another thing still is that very often the wars of the 18th century are fought by mercenaries, not by civilians. Why do mercenaries fight? To make money. Mercenaries don't want to fight to the death. They want to fight to victory and to profit, or to stop short and walk away to fight another day. These are wars that involve relatively little pillaging compared to wars that came before and came after, and as a general rule, they're not wars of annihilation. One great power did not want to annihilate another great power because that might create a power vacuum, and into a power vacuum might step one or the other of the surviving powers and become too powerful, uh, becoming a threat like Louis XIV again. So wars are fought for limited objectives. There is no unconditional surrender, and when wars become too expensive, they stop.

Another characteristic of the diplomacy of this period that is very much tied to this whole notion of maintaining a balance of power is shifting alliances. Alliances shift frequently among the great powers and many of the secondary powers as well. The one thing you can count on for sure throughout the wars of the 18th century is that France will always be on one side and Britain will always be on the other. For the most part, you can count on the fact that Austria will be on one side and Prussia will be on the other, although there are exceptions to that.

I might also mention that the wars beginning in the latter part of Louis XIV's reign and extending all the way down until the final defeat of Napoleon in 1815, that is covering a period from 1688 to 1815, are often referred to by historians as the Second Hundred Years' War. Now, you'll probably notice that 1688 to 1815 is more than 100 years. Well, so was the First Hundred Years' War from 1337 to 1453. But this is a historian's construct. Why come up with that construct? Well, because during that period, there are several constants. One is that all of the wars between 1688 and 1815 have England on one side and France on the other. All of them are also world wars, worldwide wars fought in Europe, fought on the Atlantic, fought in the New World, and fought in the Far East among European colonies. So there is a certain consistency here. This includes the War of the League of Augsburg under Louis XIV, the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Austrian Succession, which we'll talk about today, the Seven Years' War, or as it's known in America, the French and Indian War, the American War for Independence, which to us is a war for our freedom, but to European nations is just another European war, and finally, the French Revolutionary Wars and the Wars of Napoleon. So that's one way you can think about them. It's not the only way that you can, but it certainly works that way.

Now, in the first half of the 18th century, following the death of Louis XV, there are a handful of monarchs that we might think of as kind of the Old Guard, that is, men who had already been on the thrones of their respective states for a while before Louis was defeated. So let's look at them, and then we'll look at some of the newer rulers and how they interact in this period.

One of the most important figures, uh, on the throne, uh, anywhere in Europe in 1715, was Peter the Great in Russia. Peter the Great had been the ruler of Russia since 1682, and he would remain on the throne there until 1725. But one of the things that made him so important was that he changed the whole direction of Russia's international policy, and he changed much of Russia's internal policy as well. For one thing, Peter the Great was an imitator of Louis XIV. He greatly admired Louis XIV's style. He built a palace for himself that was sort of an imitation of Versailles, and he introduced a lot of ritual at his court that was an imitation of Louis as well.

Another thing that made Peter the Great important, though, was his campaign of westernization. If you look at Russia on a map, most of it is in Asia, and in fact, Russian policy for most of its history, indeed for all of its history up to this point, had been faced to the East, where the Mongols had been a threat and where much of the Russian landmass lay. Peter, however, realized that the Western European states were more progressive in the sense of having more advanced technology, doing better in warfare, establishing colonies, and so on, and he set out to deliberately imitate that. He even undertook what is sometimes called the Great Embassy, in which he traveled to the West in disguise and checked out Western technology, particularly that of shipbuilding in the Netherlands. Now, it must have been rather difficult for Peter the Great to travel in disguise because he was almost seven feet tall at a time when the average height of men was less than six feet. So how you disguise a seven-foot Russian, I'm not quite sure. But in any case, after the Great Embassy, he came back to Russia convinced that he must turn Russia into a more Western-style nation, and he set about to do that. He imported Western-style education, Western-style newspapers, he enforced upon his royal courtiers a Western-style of dress, he required the nobility to cut off their long, oriental beards, sort of the, the ZZ Top look, if you will, and required them to be clean-shaven like people in the West. Those that refused were actually required to pay a beard tax, one of the otter forms of raising revenue in the history of the world, I suppose. He also introduced all sorts of Western science, Western technology, and of course, a Western orientation, that is, facing Russia West rather than East. One of his great goals was to give Russia what he called a window on the West, which he achieved by capturing territory from Finland and building the city of Saint Petersburg, known back during the Cold War as Leningrad, now again in Saint Petersburg, which became a Baltic harbor and did indeed give Russia a window on the West. In 1721, he granted to himself the Imperial title, and the Russian rulers have enjoyed that ever since.

Next chronologically after Peter the Great, among the Old Guard, was Augustus II. Now, Augustus II was two things. He was, first of all, the ruler of Saxony, where he was known as Frederick Augustus I, but his larger domain was the kingdom of Poland, where he was elected as king in 1697 and was known as Augustus II. He was, as we'll see, deposed for a while in 1704 and thereafter, but he returned to the throne in 1709 and remained there until his death in 1733. We'll have some more interesting things to say about Poland momentarily. Now, Augustus II was by no means a negligible force in Northern Europe, but a far more important individual, indeed a great, great rival of the Russian Peter the Great, was Charles XII of Sweden, the last truly great ruler of Sweden before Sweden became what we think of as a declining power. Charles XII and Peter the Great were great rivals, and indeed, many people saw Charles XII as the more powerful of the two for a long time. In addition to being hostile to Russia, Charles XII was also hostile to Poland and to the neighboring Scandinavian state of Denmark. In Denmark itself, there comes to the throne in 1699 a long-lived king named Frederick IV, who would occupy the throne there until 1630, and as you would expect, be a major rival of Charles XII in Sweden.

If we move to the South for a minute, one of the results of the War of the Spanish Succession was the enthronement in Spain of Philip V, the first Bourbon king of Spain, replacing the last of the Habsburgs there, Charles II, who had no heirs. Philip V was the grandson of Louis XIV. He was the cause, in a lot of ways, of the War of the Spanish Succession, which ultimately saw him placed on the Spanish throne. But he found himself restricted in some ways by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, which left him in control of Spain, but also explicitly barred him or any future king of Spain from ever occupying the throne of France. Now, whether Philip V would live up to that bargain remained to be seen.

In Poland, I mentioned a moment ago that Augustus II was temporarily deposed in 1704, and his temporary replacement was a man by the name of Stanislaus Leszczynski, who will show up in our story again in a few minutes. Stanislaus was actually placed on the throne of Poland by the Swedish King Charles XII during the middle of what's known as the Great Northern War, but was able to hold on to the throne there for only five years. His significance later is that he becomes the father-in-law of the French King Louis XV, and Louis XV, as a result, becomes involved in conflicts in Poland.

Finally, if we look at Portugal, among the Old Guard, we find Joao V there, or John V, if you prefer, who came to the throne in 1706 and remained there all the way until 1750. Although a a rather proud, arrogant, and bigoted individual in terms of his treatment of his own people, his diplomatic significance is that Joao, like Portuguese rulers before and since, was very friendly to Britain, which often found itself at odds with Portugal's neighbors in Spain.

Now, that brings us to the new generation of monarchs, so to speak, that is, the monarchs who came to the throne, uh, near, uh, the time of Louis XIV's death or shortly thereafter. And one of the things that is characteristic of this new generation of monarchs is that, by and large, they are committed to peace. Not peace in the abstract, not peace because they believe peace is good in and of itself necessarily, and not for the same reason in the case of every monarch, but for one reason or another, all of them believe that peace is desirable. And the result of that is that from 1715 to 1740, although there are a number of minor conflicts in Europe, there are no major wars among the great powers like those in the last years of Louis XIV.

The first of these is Charles VI, the man who became the Emperor of Austria, still technically Holy Roman Emperor, although his power did not really extend beyond Austria. He became Holy Roman Emperor in 1711, being elected in the usual fashion, and Charles VI became an advocate of peace for a very particular reason. That reason was that he wanted to protect the succession to the Austrian throne. Now, that might not seem like that difficult to think, even though the Holy Roman Emperor was elected, the ruler in Austria was hereditary, and normally that would not have been much of a problem. But Charles VI had no sons, and he realized early on in his reign that he was unlikely to have any sons, and what he wanted to do was to ensure that the throne of Austria and all the Austrian territory would pass peacefully to his daughter, his eldest daughter, upon his death. His eldest daughter was known as Maria Theresa, and what Charles VI devoted most of his reign to doing was to securing agreement to a document called the Pragmatic Sanction, which guaranteed the succession to Maria Theresa. He really had to get two groups of people to agree to the Pragmatic Sanction. First of all, he had to get his own subjects to agree, the German subjects living in Austria, the Hungarians living in that portion of Hungary that he ruled, and the Czechs in Bohemia, which was under his control as well. And he spent a great deal of time persuading these three different ethnic groups to accept Maria Theresa, but all of them eventually accepted her. He also devoted a great deal of effort to securing the agreement of foreign powers, and by the time that he died, he, in fact, had secured the agreement of most, though not all, of the major and lesser states in Europe to her succession. But for that reason, he tried to avoid extended large conflict, since he needed the cooperation of its many states as possible, and largely he was successful.

Now, you'll notice that he dies in 1740. You'll notice that I also mentioned earlier that we have a major war in 1740. I would suggest that you keep an eye on where that date 1740 shows up again, because it will prove to be very significant. Charles's daughter, by the way, Maria Theresa, married a man named Francis Stephen of Lorraine in 1736. It was, by all indications, a very successful marriage. They had 17 children, almost all of whom had some important diplomatic role to play in the future.

Now, in the period after the death of Louis XIV, Austria dominated the southern half of Germany, the southern half of what's left of the Holy Roman Empire. But the northern half was dominated by an emerging power, the state of Prussia. Prussia had barely existed prior to the Thirty Years' War. The nucleus of Prussia was the old electoral electorate of Brandenburg, but during the course of the Thirty Years' War and the wars against Louis XIV, the rulers of Brandenburg-Prussia had gradually acquired more territory, and by the time we get to the death of Louis XIV, Prussia had emerged as a great power. It did so, um, primarily under a ruler by the name of Frederick William I, although he built upon the work of previous Prussian rulers. And one of the things that Frederick William I did, following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, was to build the entire state around the Prussian Army. If you look at Prussia on a map, it's smaller than the other great powers. It's also caught between Austria and Russia, so to speak. If it's going to survive, it has to be militarily powerful. And so the Prussians developed what is, man for man, the best army in Europe in the 18th century. Moreover, they saw to it that most Prussian men who were able-bodied were trained for military service so that they could be called up on a moment's notice if necessary. And everything else in the government is built around that, so that the king is not only king, he's also commander-in-chief. The nobility, the Prussian Junkers, as they're known, not only were the officers, they also, uh, were the aristocracy, and they were constantly in competition for promotion, which meant they wanted to please the king, which meant they were very loyal to the king.

Now, interestingly enough, one of the things that Frederick William did that absolutely inspired terror in the rest of Europe was he built up a regiment of giants. Not real giants, but men who seemed like giants compared to the rest of normal people. He recruited all over Europe for men who were seven feet tall, sort of, sort of like the NBA does today, I suppose. And in the course of doing that, he put together this entire regiment made of these very tall men that absolutely horrified the rest of Europe. But the interesting thing is he didn't use it. In fact, Frederick William tried to remain at peace. His real goal for Prussia was security, and to him, the best way to enjoy security was to have a powerful military, but to only use it if attacked. And therefore, he continues to build up the might of the military, but he doesn't wear it down any by going to war. By the way, Frederick William I agreed to the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI, that is, he agreed to recognize Maria Theresa as the heir in Austria. Very significantly, Frederick William also dies in 1740. That will turn out to be important. One other thing about him that is worthy of note is that Frederick William despised his son and heir, whose name was Frederick, who would later be known as Frederick the Great, and who despised his father just as much as his father despised him. That too, as you might guess, will be important.

If we turn to Britain, the next man to come to a European throne was George I in Britain, the first of the new Hanoverian dynasty that replaced the Stuarts after 1714. He already was Elector of Hanover, that is, the ruler of the northern German state of Hanover, but he now became king of England as well, or of Great Britain as well, creating another interesting situation where Britain's interests are tied to a German state. He was, by the time he came to Britain, separated from his wife, but he had an heir with whom he didn't get along very well either. He entrusted much of the work of government to his ministers because George didn't speak good English, he didn't really understand the English system, and the result was that a few years after his arrival as king, most of the power in England wound up being held by the man who is usually regarded as the first Prime Minister, a man by the name of Robert Walpole, who served as prime minister from 1721 to 1742, but whose power very significantly began to wane a couple of years before he fell, in other words, about 1740.

Over in France, Louis XIV had lived so long that he outlived his eldest son, he outlived his eldest son's eldest son, and therefore he was succeeded by his great-grandson, who becomes king as Louis XV in 1715, at the ripe old age of five, not quite ready for prime time, not quite ready to rule in his own right. Therefore, government was entrusted to his uncle, uh, or rather his cousin, Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, who was a nephew of Louis XIV, and who served as regent, uh, from 1715 until Louis reached his majority in 1723. Now, one of the things that Philippe, the Duke of Orléans, had to be concerned with during this period was Spain. After all, Louis XV is a child. If there's ever a time when Philip V in Spain is likely to take advantage of France to violate the Treaty of Utrecht, it's while there's a child on the throne. Furthermore, if something should happen to Louis XV, it's a long, long time before he'll be an adult. There's all sorts of things that could happen, all sorts of illnesses that he could catch. Smallpox was rampant at the time. If something should happen to him, he would have no heir. It would be years before he could marry, years before he could produce a son. Now, it, as it happens, the heir to the throne, if something did happen to Louis XV, was none other than Philippe II, Duke of Orléans. But the other likely prospect would have been Philip V of Spain. And so Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, is dead set on preventing Spain from posing a threat. And to do that, what he tries to do is maintain peace, particularly with France's traditional enemy in Britain. He's followed briefly as Louis's chief minister by the Duke of Bourbon from 1723 rather to 1726, who has the same goal in mind. And Bourbon is in turn followed as chief minister by another Cardinal, in in the vein of Richelieu and Mazarin, Cardinal Fleury, who is Louis XV's chief minister from 1726 to 1743, and who is a great believer in maintaining peace, but whose power begins to wane about 1740.

Now, when he achieved adulthood, Louis XV married, as one might expect, and the woman that he married was a young woman named Marie, the daughter of Stanislaus Leszczynski, the one-time king of Poland. And the marriage of Louis XV and Marie Leszczynska meant that Louis XV suddenly took a great interest in the affairs of Poland, and that will have some considerable significance, as we'll see. In fact, we turn next to Poland, where the next monarch to take the throne is Augustus III in 1734, and we'll have more to say about how that happens in a bit. Meanwhile, though, let me mention this: although Louis XV was married to Marie, he was never what you would call a faithful husband. He is, after all, the great-grandson of Louis XIV. After the death of Cardinal Fleury, he never again had a chief minister, but he did have a very colorful mistress by the name of Madame de Pompadour, who was his mistress from about 1745 to 1760, and who remained his close friend until her death in 1764, even after they stopped being lovers. And although a woman could not technically be a minister, Madame de Pompadour essentially functioned as one. She had more influence over Louis XV in the middle part of his reign than anybody else.

All right, now that we have looked at the major players, let's take a look at the conflicts that do occur in this period, because although there are no major wars among the great powers in the main body of Europe, there are several conflicts, and we do wrap up this period with the re-emergence of major war.

The first conflict, uh, in in this period is one that overlaps with the last war of Louis XIV and is known as the Great Northern War, which will probably lead you to comprehend that it's in the North. This war was fought between 1700 and 1721, and it essentially pits Denmark, Poland, and Russia on one side against Sweden on the other, with other states occasionally being drawn in. Now, that might seem unbalanced, Sweden on one side, Denmark, Poland, and Russia on the other, but bear in mind, Sweden has at this juncture Charles XII, one of the most brilliant military leaders of this whole era. So it was seen by the participants as a much more even fight than it might look like from retrospect. What Denmark, Poland, and Russia hoped to achieve by the Great Northern War was to reduce Swedish dominance of the Baltic Sea. Sweden dominated the Baltic Sea militarily, they dominated it navally, and therefore they dominated the trade in the Baltic Sea, and all three of the rival powers wanted to cut in on that. In addition, Peter the Great in Russia, as I mentioned earlier, wanted to establish a window on the West, which he could only do at the expense of Sweden. This was a long and bitterly fought war in which it looked at one time as though Sweden and Charles XII might be victorious, although ultimately, in the midst of the war, Charles XII died and was not followed by equally capable leadership in Sweden, and ultimately Sweden wound up being defeated. The war came to an end in 1721 with the Treaty of Nystad, and this does two things really of long-term significance. One is that it ends Swedish domination of the Baltic, and the other is that it marks very firmly the emergence of Russia as a great power. In fact, this is the same leader, uh, the same year, rather, that Peter the Great assumes the title of emperor.

Further to the South, there was a brief conflict in 1718, 19, and 20, known as the War of the Quadruple Alliance, and this is a good example of a war that is fought over trade. Now, there were more motives than just that, but this is a war that is fought primarily at sea. Philip V of Spain, as you will recall, is interested in France. The Treaty of Utrecht bars him from the throne of France, but he's not really sure he wants to go along with that, especially not with a little boy on the throne. In addition, Philip V was seeking to increase his presence in Italy. There were lands in Northern and Central Italy that he wanted for himself or his family, and this brought him into a hostile relationship with France and to a lesser extent with Britain and the Netherlands. So by 1717, Britain, France, and the Netherlands had formed an alliance against Spain called the Triple Alliance. The following year, the Austrian Empire joined that alliance as well, and in 1718, 19, and 20, they fought a fairly perfunctory war, mostly fought at sea and not really producing much in the way of lasting consequences, except for the fact that Spain was compelled at the end of the War of the Quadruple Alliance to open up trade with some of its colonies in the New World to the British. Now, the British had been trading with Spanish colonies anyway, but they had been doing so illegally and sometimes using force, in other words, as pirates. This meant that at least limited trade would now be legalized, but of course, the problem here is that Britain and Spain, especially, and in France and the Netherlands to a lesser extent, are all competing for colonies in the New World, for trade with those colonies, for more land to put with those colonies, and that's bound to lead to more difficulty. In fact, in the case of Spain and Britain, it led to another war late in the 1720s, another fairly perfunctory war, a war fought almost entirely at sea, the Anglo-Spanish War of 1727-29. There was a major siege off Gibraltar, the little island just to the south of Spain that is held by the British and is still held by them today. Ultimately, this conflict came to an end in 1729 with the Treaty of Seville and led to a restoration of all conquests, that is, Spain gave back everything it had captured, Britain gave back everything that it had captured. But one of the things that Spain also had to do was confirm Britain's right to something called the Asiento, the right to trade with colonies, and one of the unfortunate aspects of this is that this included the right to trade slaves to the Spanish colonies. So the Spanish laws, or or the Spanish confirmation of the Asiento, led to an increase in the slave trade.

Another conflict in this period was the so-called War of the Polish Succession. This was triggered by the death in 1733 of Augustus II, who we referenced earlier. In the aftermath, the Poles, as they usually do, chose a leader. It's not simply a matter of inheritance, and the much of the rest of Europe also chose to get involved whether it was their business or not. France, Spain, and Savoy supported the candidacy of Stanislaus Leszczynski, who had previously been king of Poland for five years and who, of course, is Louis XV's father-in-law. On the other hand, Austria, Prussia, and Russia initially supported a Polish candidate, but later on swung their support around to the son of Augustus II, the man who eventually becomes Augustus III. Now, this is a very peculiar war because although it was largely a war about the succession to the throne in Poland, most of it was fought elsewhere. Most of it was fought, in fact, in Italy, and it wasn't much of a war. Although technically it lasted five years from 1733 to 1738, everybody agreed to a truce in 1735, and it simply took them three more years to work out the terms of a peace. That peace came with the Treaty of Vienna in 1738, in which, among other things, France recognized the Pragmatic Sanction in Austria, Stanislaus Leszczynski renounced his claim to the throne and recognized Augustus III as king of Poland. Stanislaus also received possession of the Duchy of Lorraine. Maria Theresa's husband, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, gave up Lorraine, instead got the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Philip V's son, Charles, received possession of Naples and Sicily.

Now, in the meanwhile, Spain and Britain had been at peace since 1729. But beginning in around 1737, the Spanish began stopping British ships. The Spanish claimed that the British were pirates. The British claimed that the Spanish were stopping legal ships. Either way, the Spanish were searching the British ships for cargo, and they almost always reached the conclusion that that cargo was illegal, in which case they seized it. Some of it almost certainly was illegal, some of it probably was not. But the upshot of this is that in 1738, a Spanish ship stopped a British ship captained by a man named Jenkins, and in the melee that took place on deck, allegedly a Spanish soldier cut off Mr. Jenkins' ear. This led to an uproar in the British Parliament, in which, among other things, a member of Parliament brought in a piece of flesh which he claimed was Jenkins' ear. Maybe, maybe not. But this led to an outbreak of a new round of fighting at sea between Britain and Spain that is often referred to as the War of Jenkins' Ear. But this conflict was quickly subsumed in a much larger conflict, a conflict that sees the resumption of major action among great powers, and that is the so-called War of the Austrian Succession, or as it's known in America, King George's War, which lasted from 1740 until 1748. A war that saw Austria and Britain on one side, France, Prussia, and Spain on the other.

Here's what happened: in 1740, the Austrian Emperor Charles VI died and was succeeded by his daughter Maria Theresa. So far, so good. But the question becomes, who will be elected Holy Roman Emperor? Maria Theresa, as a woman, could not hold that position, and therefore it was her desire to have her husband Francis elected. But there were rival claimants. In Bavaria, there was a claimant named Charles, who, in fact, won election in 1742 as Charles VII. Philip V of Spain also laid claim to the Imperial throne. Augustus III of Poland also laid claim to the Imperial throne. So there was something of a free-for-all. More significant, though, is that in Prussia, Frederick William I also died in 1740 and was succeeded by his son, Frederick II, or Frederick the Great, a man whose father had despised him because Frederick the Great was a great fan of the Enlightenment. He liked to read poetry, he liked to read the work of the philosophes, he liked to play the flute. He didn't seem to be the sort of martial man that his father wanted him to be. But in fact, Frederick the Great turned out not only to be an enlightened individual but also one of the greatest soldiers in history, certainly the most effective general of the 18th century. And Frederick felt absolutely no need to honor his father's agreement to the Pragmatic Sanction. He was eager to make war, and he did so by invading the territory of Maria Theresa. And thus, this triggered a war in which Britain came to Maria Theresa's aid, Hungary came to Maria Theresa's aid, and France and Spain jumped in on the side of Prussia. This was a long and drawn-out conflict, a limited war, to be sure, but a still fairly bloody one. It had at least one major side effect outside of the fighting in Europe and in the New World, and that is that in 1745, the French sponsored the grandson of the old British King James II in an invasion of Britain to try to take back the throne. This grandson of James II is known as Charles, or more frequently, he's referred to as Bonnie Prince Charlie, and he made a pretty serious effort at taking the British throne in 1745 and 46. Ultimately, he was defeated. He went back to the continent, where he spent the rest of his life increasingly drunk and sickly. But it was a very close run thing. The successor of George I, George II, was quite lucky to have defeated Bonnie Prince Charlie.

The upshot of this long war was the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, and by and large, it returned Europe to the status quo with very few exceptions. One result of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle is that Prussia kept a substantial chunk of territory that it had taken from Maria Theresa, the large and rich territory of Silesia, valuable both for mining and for agriculture. In return for keeping Silesia, Prussia recognized the Pragmatic Sanction and the right of Maria Theresa to rule in Austria. In addition to that, Philip V's son, Charles, kept control of Naples and Sicily, and he also got some additional territory in Central Italy. Hanover retained its control in Northern Germany. Savoy got a little piece of the Duchy of Milan, and other than that, everybody returned their conquests. But the animosity that had motivated this war remained. Prussia remained hostile to Austria and vice versa. Britain remained hostile to France and vice versa. And new conflicts would not be long in coming.

All right, so yeah, you know, lots of people in Western Civilization and a lot of different rulers that obviously we've seen in past lectures and you'll see in future lectures that we have to learn about because there's so many different states in Europe at the time. So when we come back on our next lecture, we'll learn more about the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, that takes place in the 18th century. Until next time.