The Battle of Fontenoy 1745

Saxe against Cumberland in the War of the Austrian Succession

James Falkner

• Publisher: Pen and Sword Military
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781526718433
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Early Modern History
• Index: History

The Battle of Fontenoy marked a turning point in the War of the Austrian Succession, yet it has rarely been analyzed in depth and the Europe-wide conflict in which it played a part is little understood. James Falkner, in this perceptive and original account, puts the record straight by describing the fighting in graphic detail and setting it in the context of the sequence of wars that determined the shape of Europe during the eighteenth century. Great Britain with her Austrian and Dutch allies fought to ensure that Maria Theresa of Austria should be able to take the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. Ranged against her interests was the might of Louis XV's France, which strove to weaken Austria by promoting a Bavarian aspirant to the Imperial throne. On 11 May 1745 at Fontenoy in the Austrian Netherlands the two sides met in a ferocious day-long struggle that changed course of the war. James Falkner's narrative gives a fascinating insight into the Battle of Fontenoy itself and more widely into the nature of warfare in Europe 250 years ago.

PART ONE

THE COMING OF WAR

Chapter 1

Problems with the Pragmatica Sanctio

A term employed during the Byzantine Empire to connote a solemn and public Act of State.1

The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, with the subsequent treaties negotiated over the next two years, at last brought to a tired end the War of the Spanish Succession, a conflict that had been fought to decide whether a French prince or an Austrian archduke should inherit the vacant throne in Madrid. In reality, this had been a power play between Louis XIV of France and Emperor Leopold I of Austria – tellingly, both Bourbon and Habsburg interests were adequately served in the end although no one seemed content. The treaty contained amongst its many provisions a most particular one, that the imperial throne in Vienna – the throne of the Holy Roman Empire no less – should pass directly to the eldest son, or failing a son to the eldest daughter, of the Austrian Emperor Charles VI when he died. If only the war had progressed differently that same Charles would have become the king in Madrid, ruling as Carlos III, but instead the young French prince, Philippe, Duc d’Anjou, made good his claim with considerable help from his grandfather, and at last become King Philip V – and unexpectedly proved to be a rather good choice. The young Austrian aspirant to the Spanish throne had, in any case, become Emperor Charles VI on the death in 1711 of his older brother Joseph I, and he could hardly have been expected, or probably even wanted, to occupy both thrones – one in Vienna and the other in Madrid.

The provisions in the treaty pertaining to the throne in Vienna became known as The Pragmatic Sanction (Pragmatica Sanctio): ‘a public manifesto proclaiming that the German, Bohemian and Hungarian lands of the Habsburgs had become a single state … the Habsburg domains were indivisible’2 (author’s italics). Although the emperor had to be elected by the imperial Diet in Frankfurt, this elective process was something of a formality as the imperial throne had by long custom become a kind of hereditary office occupied by members of a branch of the extensive Habsburg family, a dynasty surely seen to be lying weighted under the spell of their own illustrious past by the time of the Treaty of Utrecht.

Leaving to one side the multitude of principalities large and small, electorates, duchies, bishoprics and other lands of the Holy Roman Empire (an entity neither holy, roman nor an empire, as it was once wittily described), the Habsburg Austrian domains were of considerable extent and importance to Europe, at least in part as they served as a bulwark against Ottoman aspirations and incursions from the east. The empire comprised, in addition to Austria itself, much of southern Germany and parts of Poland (mostly Silesia), Hungary (larger than today), Bohemia, Moravia, the southern Netherlands, and wide swathes of the Tyrol and Italy. Austrian interests and influence, therefore, extended across most of Europe, and to a significant degree the well-being of the empire was the well-being of all.

Such apparent all-encompassing power and influence was, however, an illusion, for Vienna lacked a system of strong central government and struggled to exercise real control over such a vast empire, the constituent parts of which each had their own strong opinions, arrangements, liberties and traditions on matters financial, administrative and judicial. Of particular concern, Austria’s once formidable military capability had been allowed to fade, with repeated unfortunate and unsuccessful campaigns in eastern and south-eastern Europe, mediocre field commanders and an army that was kept short of both money and innovation by an emperor who chased shadows in attempting to secure for his daughter Maria-Theresa the succession to the imperial throne.

Aware of this lack, and the in-built frailty in Vienna, other European monarchs and rulers cast envious and predatory eyes over the imperial lands, and waited for the right opportunity to strike and take their share of whatever spoils might be available. France, in addition, had a long-held policy of keeping Germany divided and accordingly weak – paradoxically something that the arcane rules of the Holy Roman Empire fostered. ‘In the early decades of the eighteenth century, the most important single theme in European politics was the rivalry between the two hegemonal powers of Austria and France.’3 There was, also, the distraction of an ever-present threat, if temporarily dormant, of Turkish Ottoman invasion from the east – as recently as the 1680s a great battle had been fought to bring to an end a Turkish siege of Vienna. The victory at Zenta in 1697 had bought respite, but that did not last and the possibility of a fresh threat from the Balkans lay like a shadow over everything the Habsburgs tried to do, while there was also the added complication of simmering unrest and occasional rebellion, and a degree of lingering ill-will and mutual mistrust, in Hungary.

Maria-Theresa Walburga Amalia Christina, the first-born child of Emperor Charles VI, arrived healthy and bonny in the morning of 13 May 1717, and this otherwise happy event would in time bring considerable trouble to western Europe. In time the emperor would have no surviving son, despite energetic efforts enjoyed with his wife, Empress Elizabeth-Christina, in the marital bedchamber. The lady was fortified with liberal potations of both alcohol and rich food to encourage her fecundity; despite all this, the next child was once more a girl. The problem that Charles VI chose to avert was that for centuries – in fact since 1438 – the elective office of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had been held by the Habsburgs. Imperial law, however, forbade a woman from becoming emperor, so the failure of Charles VI to have sons meant that, with his death, the most distinguished secular title in Europe would pass by the elective process to a non-Habsburg, in all likelihood a member of the House of Wittelsbach.

True enough, there were no surviving boys born, and so the emperor devoted much thought and effort to ensuring that when he vacated the throne his eldest daughter should be accepted as his appropriate heir, most particularly by the imperial Diet in Frankfurt. As far as possible, and yet acknowledging the predatory nature of the politics of the time, he did ensure that all interested parties subscribed to the Pragmatic Sanction terms contained in the Treaty of Utrecht – in effect that when he died, should he still have no surviving son, then his daughter would be accepted by the Diet as his rightful heir. Such an inheritance was of course fraught with potential difficulties but Maria-Theresa would prove to be a formidable and obstinate woman: ‘Controlled by self-discipline, in decisive moments she acted with hard determination and always carried out her will.’4 Emperor Charles had, it might be thought, a worthy successor in his daughter, as time would show.

It should be mentioned that the Pragmatic Sanction excluded from consideration to the succession to the throne in Vienna the two daughters of Charles’ deceased older brother, the late Joseph I, who had died of smallpox in 1711. These two women, Maria-Josepha (married to Augustus II, King of Poland) and Maria-Amalia (married to Charles-Albert, Elector of Bavaria), might well have been considered – and perhaps even considered themselves – to have at least as good a claim as their younger cousin. Still the Pragmatic Sanction had excluded them, and helped to store up a deep well of troubled water in the process. The emperor’s ruthless intention was clear: his nieces were to be excluded. ‘Who could blame him if, as the head of the dynasty, he was to change the order of succession, and give preference to his own children over his brother’s daughters?’5

The older girls had, in fact, reconciled themselves, by renunciations of any claim at the time of their respective marriages, to what for them was at best an illusion, because at the time of their exclusion by their uncle, he was young and had every expectation of having at least one son. In fact, Emperor Leopold, who died in 1705, had intended that the eldest of his grandchildren, female if there was no boy, should succeed to the throne, but Charles VI changed all that with the Pragmatic Sanction and this was proclaimed on 14 September 1713. A longed-for son would at last be born to Charles and Elizabeth-Christina, but unfortunately he did not live for more than a few weeks, and so was unable to save everyone concerned a great deal of trouble.

Appreciating that the chances of a male heir were diminishing as each year went by, between 1720 and 1730 Charles VI sought to further secure the widest agreement that his oldest daughter was to be regarded as his rightful heir. The various Estates of the empire did agree to uphold the Pragmatic Sanction, but the acceptance of neighbouring states and other interested parties was more costly and qualified. Russia only agreed in return for support in fighting the Ottomans, a course which risked stirring up again long-held animosity which had been thought to be settled, and leading eventually to the catastrophic loss to Austria of Belgrade. The Elector of Saxony required support in his claim to the throne in Warsaw, leading to damaging involvement in the War of the Polish Succession, a conflict in which Vienna had little to gain. In an odd aside, the war was only resolved by Maria-Theresa’s husband, Duke Francis-Stephen of Lorraine (a great-grandson of Louis XIII of France), giving up the title and territory to France in return for the Austrian-held Duchy of Tuscany and gaining the title of an Austrian archduke in the process. Great Britain was at war with Spain, largely in a dispute over commerce, and so London’s support was only obtained at the expense of Austrian trading concessions with Madrid being given up. Holland’s only real concern was for the security of her borders with Austrian territory in the southern Netherlands, while France’s support for the Pragmatic Sanction was heavily qualified as Versailles was also treaty-bound to uphold any claim made by the Elector of Bavaria on behalf of his wife Maria-Amalia, the second daughter of the late Emperor Joseph I.

All in all this was a complex and dangerously tangled situation, fraught with the possibility of renewed war if miscalculation, avarice or impatience took hold. All three factors, in the event, would play their part. Prince Eugene of Savoy, the most accomplished of all the Habsburg’s military commanders and also one of the finest diplomats they ever had at their service, had once drily commented to Charles VI that a strong army and a full treasury were better than any such agreement, tentative or explicit, with other states. In this he may have been right, but the emperor had neither of these assets to bequeath to his almost entirely inexperienced daughter, untutored as she was in diplomacy or the affairs of government.

When Charles VI at last went to his grave on 20 October 1740, at the respectable age for the period of 57, storm clouds quickly gathered over the whole matter of the succession. ‘Hardly had the last of the Habsburgs been laid in the vault than the princes of Europe began quarrelling over the spoils.’6 Understandably, 23-year-old Maria Theresa and her husband, Archduke Francis-Stephen – ‘a perfect gentleman, an excellent horseman and huntsman, who carried his liquor superbly’, it was recalled – felt that her claim to the imperial throne had the most validity.7 The Elector of Bavaria, Charles-Albert, however, was keen to press his own claim, ostensibly on his wife’s behalf, regardless of what had been agreed or thought to have been agreed twenty-five or more years before at the close of the war for the throne in Madrid. Significantly, Charles-Albert had the powerful backing of France in the endeavour, and this despite a clause in the Treaty of Utrecht explicitly binding the French crown to uphold the terms of the Pragmatic Sanction:

His Most Christian Majesty [the French king, Louis XIV] declares that he considers this heritage, according to the will of His Majesty the Emperor, the eternal and indivisible fee-entail of the Emperor’s firstborn descendant of either sex.8

In actual fact, as early as 1715 the French had expressed a lack of commitment to the precise terms of the Pragmatic Sanction. The intention of Louis XIV was, in fact, to use all the means at his power to elevate the Elector of Bavaria to the imperial title. Maximilien-Emmanuel Wittelsbach, the then elector, had of course been a staunch ally of the French king in the war for Spain, and his ambition to become emperor went back to 1702 when as Governor-General of the Spanish Netherlands he had favoured the French claimant to the throne in Madrid and allied himself to Versailles. In this way he attached the power and influence of France to his claim, disastrously as it turned out in 1704 at the battle of Blenheim, but he regained his position and lands with the Treaty of Utrecht. His son, when the issue became live in 1740, benefited from that same thread of French support, which as a matter of policy was intended at least in part to weaken Austria and its ties with the German states of the empire. Despite all this, French diplomacy had managed to weave a rather tangled web over the whole matter, and one of Louis XV’s chief ministers, Cardinal Fleury, wrote in January 1738 to Emperor Charles VI in Vienna:

The king will observe with the most exact and inviolable fidelity the engagements which he has made with you, and if I may speak of myself after a name so worthy, I venture to flatter myself that my pacific intentions are well enough known for it to be supposed that I am very far from thinking of setting Europe on fire.9

Fleury was strongly in favour of diplomatic solutions, but his influence was noticeably waning, and less cautious men waited to be heard.

Maria-Theresa, as a woman, could hardly style herself Holy Roman Emperor, but she was pregnant at the time of her father’s death and of course hoped for a son. In the meantime she sought that the imperial title be bestowed on her husband, and that the required election be made by the nine Electors of the imperial Diet (three archbishoprics and six temporal). The outlook was not promising, however, with what was undoubtedly an unprecedented situation – Maria-Theresa recalled that at the unsteady start of her reign she had found herself without money, an army, experience or knowledge of state affairs. She was tough (more so than her easy-going and affable husband) and resilient, and that was just as well, but her father had perversely excluded her from all council meetings and she had to learn things quickly. Also, just to complicate matters, two members of the electoral college were close relations of the Bavarian claimant, which did not bode too well for her husband’s chances for easy success.

To add spice to this dynastic mix, Frederick II, the 28-year-old Prussian king (yet to be accorded the rather spurious title ‘the Great’), had succeeded his late father Frederick William I on 1 May 1740, and quickly took advantage of apparent Austrian weakness at this time of transition and uncertainty. ‘All was foreseen,’ the new king wrote, ‘all was thought out in advance. So, it is only a question of carrying out the designs that I have long had in mind.’10 On 16 December 1740 Prussian troops crossed the border and invaded the rich Austrian province of Silesia. The Austrian commander in the region, Lieutenant General Maximilien Browne, withdrew with understandable caution, although leaving garrisons in important places, as he could not hope to match the Prussian numbers until reinforced by troops called for from Vienna.

Frederick’s threadbare excuse for this clear act of uncalled-for aggression was set out in a letter sent to King George II in London in January 1741: ‘Far from desiring to disturb Europe I demand only that heed be paid to the justice of my incontestable rights … The tyranny under which the Silesians have groaned is frightful, and the barbarity of the Catholics towards them.’11 He went on in increasingly avid but still improbable terms:

If your majesty desires to attach to yourself a faithful ally of inviolable constancy, this is the time; our interests, our religion, our blood is the same, and it would be sad to see ourselves acting against each other. It would be still more grievous to oblige me to concert in the great plans of France, which I intend to do only if I am impelled.

Just how constant an ally Frederick would prove to be would soon be seen, and George II would need to use a long spoon when supping with the Prussian, who had famously declared that, ‘If there is anything to be gained from being honest, let us be honest; if it is necessary to deceive, let us deceive.’12

Frederick’s lame reasoning, quite apart from the implied threat to George II as the Elector of Hanover if he did not take heed to what was being proposed, was an old and certainly rather doubtful Brandenburg claim to certain Austrian lands. These included the disputed succession to the Duchy of Berg, but all was cloaked in a pretended desire to protect his co-religionists in Silesia. It was, in fact, just simple opportunism, and also a fine example of misplaced confidence and presumption on the part of the inexperienced Prussian ruler, thinking that his support for Maria-Theresa’s claim to the imperial throne could be bought with Silesia as the price to be paid. ‘I am bringing the key to Austria’s prosperity and the imperial crown,’ the Prussian envoy in Vienna told Maria-Theresa’s outraged husband Francis-Stephen; ‘my sovereign is ready to support the queen with his treasury and his army. As a reward for his service and compensation for the risk he takes, he claims Silesia. Nothing less is acceptable.’ A figure of 1 million florins in hard cash was mentioned as a clumsy inducement for Vienna to accept the Prussian aggression and say no more on the matter. The response given to such arrogant presumption was cool and crushing: ‘The queen’s position is by no means so perilous that she should have to strike a bargain at all costs … as long as there are Prussian troops on Silesian soil there can be no negotiations.’13

Such a stance was coloured, in part, because of the thriving industry and commerce in Silesia, which was more active than in much of the Austrian territories and provided a major part of the vital tax revenue enjoyed by, and depended on, by Vienna. An added and perhaps overriding complication in all this was the strict proviso in the Pragmatic Sanction that the Habsburg lands as constituted in 1713 should remain undivided. If then Silesia, as a key part of that inheritance, should be meekly let go, then it could be argued that the Sanction and Maria-Theresa’s claim to the imperial title really meant very little at all. The invasion of Silesia had broken the explicit terms of the Pragmatic Sanction, as the then King in Prussia (Frederick Wilhelm I) had been a party to the treaty that set the requirement so precisely that the Austrian possessions should not be divided. As it was, with such a flagrant breach now made by his son, other parties felt free to take a hand and see what pickings could be obtained, and open war on a wide scale soon came to Europe once more.

Spain, influential and powerful again under the French-born King Philip V, would become involved in the dynastic argument, largely in an attempt to gain Austrian-held territory in Italy. The Duchy of Piedmont-Sardinia ranged itself against both Spain and France, with the same kind of aspirations in mind concerning lands held by them both. Despite this, recognition of the validity of the claim of Maria-Theresa to the imperial throne was sent by the Duke of Savoy to Vienna, but this seemed mostly to be a case of playing for time while seeing what other opportunities arose. In the meantime, Prussian troops occupied Breslau without difficulty, and inflicted a serious defeat on the reinforced Austrians commanded by Field Marshal Niepperg at the battle of Mollwitz on 10 April 1741. The Prussian cavalry and their king were route...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Toc
• List of Maps and Plates
• Introduction
• Chronology
• Part One: The Coming of War
• Part Two: A Most Bloody Battle
• Part Three: Hard Roads Towards Peace
• Appendix1. Orders of Battle of the Armiesat Fontenoy
• Appendix2. The Deposition of Brigadier General Richard Ingoldsby
• Appendix3. British Casualties at Fontenoy
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Plate section