sign in sign up
<<
Home , Austrian Netherlands, Burgau, Cabinet wars, Carniola, Duke of Parma, Imperial Circle

VMUN 2018

Historical Crisis Committee

CRISIS BACKGROUND GUIDE

Vancouver Model United Nations The 17th Annual Session | January 19 - 21, 2018

To the delegates of The of the Austrian Succession, Ken Hong Secretary-General Greetings! My name is Qaasim Karim, and I will be directing the Historical Crisis Committee for VMUN 2018. I hope you are as all as excited as I am to jump into the world of 18th-century politics and intrigue. The world of the - of Empresses and -Electors - is so foreign to our own, and I could not be happier guiding delegates through such a complex, multi-faceted, Callum Shepard and engaging period. The War of the Austrian Succession is set right before the Diplomatic Chief of Staff Revolution and the 7 Years War – both preludes to the of the .

Jerry Jiao The War of the Austrian Succession sort of forms the final glorious point of the old European Director-General order – Nationalism has not reared its head, and the chaos of the revolutionary era has not yet arrived. The War of the Austrian Succession was a great game played by people of unimaginable Andrew Wei power and wealth – trading , land and people like playing cards. Moreover, the characters Director of Logistics in the War of the Austrian Succession are as interesting as the period: , the greatest of the Prussians; , one of - if not the most, competent and gifted of the Habsburg rulers; Elizabeth Farnese, a terrifyingly ambitious and powerful Queen of Spain, along with many more equally strange and fascinating characters. Jadine Ngan USG General Assemblies The committee, I hope, will not just be history though – I am sure that all of you will bring your cleverness and research to the table to bring this world to life in its chaotic glory. It will Eric Zhang take much plotting, many notes, and many directives to try to get your nation and character to USG Specialized Agencies the top, and I am all too glad to see you all battle for the fate of Europe and North America. I sincerely cannot wait to read your position papers and then to meet you all properly to see your Dillon Ramlochun plans for whatever form of world domination you each have planned in this era of stuffy USG Conference formality and obscure tradition. I hope to see you all at VMUN 2018!

Angelina Zhang Sincerely, USG Delegate Affairs Qaasim Karim Jerry Xu HCC Director USG Delegate Affairs

Alan Chen USG Finance

Meghna Lohia USG IT Position Paper Policy

What is a Position Paper? A position paper is a brief overview of a ’s stance on the topics being discussed by a particular committee. Though there is no specific format the position paper must follow, it should include a description of your positions your country holds on the issues on the agenda, relevant actions that your country has taken, and potential solutions that your country would support.

At Vancouver Model United Nations, delegates should write a position paper for each of the committee’s topics. Each position paper should not exceed one page, and should all be combined into a single document per delegate.

Formatting Position papers should: — Include the name of the delegate, his/her country, and the committee — Be in a standard font (e.g. Times New Roman) with a 12-point font size and 1-inch document margins — Not include illustrations, diagrams, decorations, national symbols, watermarks, or page borders — Include citations and a bibliography, in any format, giving due credit to the sources used in research (not included in the 1-page limit)

Due Dates and Submission Procedure

Position papers for this committee are mandatory. The submission deadline is January 7th, 2018.

Once your position paper is complete, please save the file as your last name, your first name and send it as an attachment in an email, to your committee’s email address, with the subject heading as your last name, your first name — Position Paper. Please do not add any other attachments to the email or write anything else in the body.

Both your position papers should be combined into a single PDF or Word document file; position papers submitted in another format will not be accepted.

The email address for this committee is [email protected].

The War of Austrian Succession ...... 6 An Overview of the World in 1740 ...... 6 Europe ...... 6

Iberia ...... 6 ...... 6 The British Isles ...... 7

The Low ...... 7 The Holy ...... 8

Saxony – Poland-Lithuania ...... 8 ...... 9 ...... 9 ...... 9 ...... 10 Fenno-Scandinavia ...... 10 ...... 10 The ...... 10 North America ...... 11

French America ...... 11 British America ...... 11 Spanish America ...... 11 Other ...... 12 East Asia ...... 12 Social and Political Considerations ...... 12

The Absolute – L’etat, c’est moi ...... 12 The Enlightenment – The Nation, by the Ruler, for the People ...... 13 Kabinettskriege – in the 18th Century ...... 14 King-Electors and Empress-Archduchesses - A Guide to Royal Titles ...... 15 Current Issues ...... 17

The Pragmatic Sanction ...... 17

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 4 The ...... 18 The Balance of Power in Italy ...... 19

The New World ...... 19 East Asia ...... 20 Bibliography ...... 21

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 5 The War of Austrian Succession

An Overview of the World in 1740

This summary of the world will focus primarily on Europe and North America, as that is the focus and restriction of the committee.

Europe

Iberia Iberia, the westernmost peninsula of Europe, in 1740 was divided between Spain and Portugal, both powers in decline. Portugal had just reached a century of independence after the disastrous dynastic union with Spain ended in 1640; however, Portugal still had not regained her maritime power or overseas possessions. Spain and her New World colonies had been exhausted of nearly all their material and agricultural wealth during the Habsburg period, and the country maintained a medieval, feudal government structure. The country had been further destroyed by the War of the Spanish Succession, after the death of Charles II when the Spanish throne was contested between Philip V and Archduke Charles of Austria. The destruction of much of the country and seizure of nearly all of Spain’s European possessions (bar Naples) further showed that Spain was no longer a major European power—its golden age finally ended. Upon winning the War of the Spanish Succession, Philip V had implemented some domestic reforms, creating a semi-modern administration; however, the aggressive foreign policy of the country, directed by Queen Elizabeth Farnese, consumed the royal treasury and continued to push the nation further towards the brink. The War of Jenkin’s Ear, conflict with Britain over the New World and Gibraltar goes on—significant reforms in domestic and international policy must be made before Spain is to regain its former stature.

France During the 18th century, France was in the position of near-hegemon of Europe. Louis XIV (1638-1715), through the War of Devolution (1667), the Franco-Dutch War (1672-78), and the War of the Reunions (1683-84) obtained victory after victory for France, which secured its borders against Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. In addition to the victory in war, France colonized vast expanses of the New World, opening fur-trading stations in Quebec and Louisiana. The French homeland grew rich, and developed, under Louis XIV and Cardinal Richelieu; however, this would not last. The Edict of Fontainebleau (1685) and the ensuing chaos after the wars against Protestantism in France ended domestic tranquility, and more limited successes in The War of the Grand Alliance (1697) and defeats and a forced peace during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701) shattered the myth of French military invulnerability and encouraged widespread dissent against the wars. This was followed by the death of Louis XIV, and ascension of Louis XV. Louis XV was a less able administrator than his predecessor, and — despite a limited success during the War of the Polish Succession (1733) with the capture of Lorraine — France is not the European hegemon it desires to be. Its population was exhausted by war, and its treasury depleted. However, France remains the centre of European intellectual and artistic discourse – the lingua franca of Europe remains French. France’s enemies are many, but the nation is great; however, it needs a strong, competent leader. Then, France can finally take the place it deserves: the undisputed master of Europe.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 6 The British Isles Britain is in a position of strength in 1740. It succeeded against France in the War of the Spanish Succession and War of the Grand Alliance while continuing to expand in the New World and India. The realms of England and Scotland were united into one crown in 1707. The chaos of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution had finally been ended, and under Prime Minister Robert Walpole, a stable governmental system had been created, with a power-sharing balance between the merchant and aristocratic classes. The crisis of the South Sea Bubble had been solved with minimal damage to the economy, and British colonies remained stable and prosperous. However, there were still crises for Great Britain to resolve. Britain was at war with Spain over Gibraltar and New World border disputes. France too had contested borders with Britain in the New World and India. With the ascension of George I in 1714, Hanover was tied to Britain, and with it continental issues and the politics of the Holy Roman Empire. The King of Britain was now an elector, and the nation was forced to take an increased interest in the European balance of power. In addition to foreign issues, a domestic issue looms large in the eyes of the British political class – the religious split. Britain denies religious rights to Nonconformist Protestants and Catholics, and fear of conspiracy was high. The Stuart pretenders to the throne, the Jacobites, are supported by the French monarchy, and Britain is paranoid of their return. Britain is strong and stable but must address pressing foreign issues before it can continue its path of ascendancy.

The The Low Countries were split between the Austrian Netherlands, the United , and the Prince-Bishopric of Liege in 1740. The United Provinces of the Netherlands, which revolted from the in the , after securing their independence, had become one of the most prosperous and liberal states in Europe. With a governmental system balanced between republicanism and monarchism ruled by a Stadholder who in turn weighed the interests of the merchant class and the aristocracy with a policy of religious tolerance, the became known for peace and wealth. However, this was not to last. Despite increased Dutch presence in the East Indies and control of the spice trade, Dutch maritime control was contested by Britain, and the government system declined into infighting and corruption, with the position of Stadtholder empty. The Dutch had managed previously without an elected Stadtholder in 1650, but by the the aristocracy is rapidly gaining more political power and sidelining the interests of the merchant class. In addition to the governmental chaos, a French invasion in 1672 devastated the country and only recently had infrastructure recovered. The United Provinces needs to repair its government and restore its armies to not be destroyed.

The Austrian Netherlands and the Prince-Bishopric of Liege have continued roughly in the same fashion since the medieval era in terms of economy and social structure. As a result of the War of the Spanish Succession, Spanish dominion gave over to Austrian governance, and the creation of the Ostend East India led to period of prosperity; however, once that venture collapsed, the Austrian Netherlands and Liege continued as unimportant, moderately successful member-states of the Holy Roman Empire. Their economies are based on exporting cloth but have been facing recent competition from the Indies. Despite this lack of economic power, the Austrian Netherlands acts as the western shield for the Holy Roman Empire, as such the land is dotted with great fortresses prepared for French attack.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 7 The Holy Roman Empire The Holy Roman Empire is an elective monarchy which has dominated central Europe from 800 CE up to 1740. Consisting of hundreds of , , , archbishoprics, landgraviates, monasteries, nunneries, Free , and more, each subnational entity was autonomous but not independent. Each Imperial State had its ruler, but the entire national body was ruled over by the elected of the Romans. The Holy Roman Empire was in effect a semi-devolved confederacy, with each state acting as autonomous governors of their . States were organized by Imperial Circle and were represented by the Imperial Diet, a legislature presided over by the Emperor. Relations and disputes between states were handled by the Imperial Courts, a monolithic bureaucracy that attempted to resolve conflict through judicial process. The Emperor was elected by a group of known as the Electors upon the previous Emperor’s death. This system was the theoretical way the Empire was meant to function.

After the Thirty Year’s War, however, this government – which was already in decay – entirely broke down. The Empire was now held together by the power of tradition and the helplessness of the states within to do anything about their situation. Countries governed themselves virtually independently, and the Imperial Courts became effectively powerless. The Diet lost its authority and, with the Peace of Westphalia and the recognition of the Lutheran and Calvinist faiths, the ability of the Emperor to enforce their will on the Empire with anything but force was broken. The elected governance turned into a hereditary system, as the Habsburgs took control of Imperial elections and had been elected since 1438 CE. The Empire became a battleground of influence between four major states – and Prussia in the north-east, and Austria and Bavaria in the south. The west was a group of princedoms who had little to no powers beyond attempting to resist French incursion - they were inevitably bullied, or conquered by the major powers. Ignoring the instability and decay, the pomp and ceremony of Empire continued – trying to maintain an aura of power and respectability, despite all signs otherwise.

Saxony – Poland-Lithuania The Electors of Saxony, a small but well-populated and wealthy in Northwestern , had great dynastic success as of late. Their ruling family, the Von Wettins, gained control of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under their previous ruler Augustus II. His son, Augustus III, now ruled over a state larger than the Holy Roman Empire itself as well as the wealthy within the Empire. However, all was not well. The Saxon had prioritized the development of their realm over the Commonwealth, and while Saxony prospered with growing and industry, Poland-Lithuania steeply declined.

The entrance of Saxony into the Northern Wars and later the War of the Polish Succession devastated the Commonwealth. Swedish and Russian armies ransacked the nation in an event known as The Deluge, where nearly the entire country was occupied by foreign forces. The Commonwealth did not recover from this sacking, as most everything of value or use to the nation was stolen or destroyed by the Russians or Swedes. Towns were abandoned, the minor became impoverished, and the political system crumbled. The Cossacks revolted in the south, and the prominent noble families of the Commonwealth conspired with foreign powers to save themselves and their estates. In the 1717 “Silent Sejm” (the Sejm being the representative parliament of the nobility of Poland-Lithuania), through Russian influence, Saxon armies were banned in Poland-Lithuania, while the armies of the Czars could freely through. Magnate families controlled most political processes within the Commonwealth, and the so-called king of Poland became a figurehead. Saxony and its realms needed many

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 8 reforms, quickly, or they would lose their great asset and return to their previous status as a minor German .

Bavaria The Electorate of Bavaria was one of the more influential principalities within the Holy Roman Empire. Dominating south-eastern Germany and the Lower Palatinate, the Electors of Bavaria governed a rich land from their capital at Munich. However, Bavaria was in an economic recession due to destruction wrought by recent conflict. The late Prince Ferdinand Maria had developed a modern administration for Bavaria, but his later successor Maximilian II Emanuel undid much of his work with the unfortunate entry into the War of the Spanish Succession and the resulting occupation and near partition and dismantlement of the nation between Austria and the state of the Palatinate, which was narrowly avoided by the end of the war. The new king Charles VII looks to increase the power of his house, and looks towards the throne of Austria; however, Bavaria will need allies and strong resolve to avoid the fate avoided only a few years ago.

Prussia Prussia is a strange nation. Its rulers, the Electors of , were subjects of the Holy Roman Empire, while also being Kings-in-Prussia, subjects of the Polish Crown. In theory, Brandenburg is a servant of both realms, but Prussia regularly defies both. With a recent series of capable rulers, most notably Frederick I who gained the of King in Prussia, and Frederick William I, who welded the aristocracy to the military. Frederick William was especially successful in his reforms, creating a military-aristocratic complex that prized military service as a rite of passage, increasing the size and quality of the to compete with larger states such as Austria. Using a strategy of historical fabrications, threats, marriage, and bribery, Prussia has slowly gained ownership or loyalty of both its local territories around north-eastern Germany, to owning territories in places as far away as the Rhineland. Prussia now competes with Austria and Saxony to become the model German power. It has a modern and efficient administration, with a strong military; can it break out of the creaking edifices of the Holy Roman Empire and Poland and forge a path all its own?

Austria AEIOU - Austriae est imperare orbi universo ("It is Austria's destiny to rule the whole world") – was mystical motto first used by Frederick III of Austria during his 15th century reign, and it continues to represent what Austria, and its ruling family, the Habsburgs, desire for themselves and the nation they lead. Having been elected Holy Roman Emperors since 1438, conquered Bohemia during the Thirty Year’s War, maintained the Rhenish forts against French assault, and recaptured the whole of Hungary from the Ottomans after fighting the Turkish forces from the gates of , Austria and the Habsburgs have become a world power through hundreds of years of politicking and war. With its rulership of the Empire, its central lands along the Danube, its Italian possessions in Lombardy and Tuscany and the Austrian Netherlands, Austria continues to be a Pan- European power, even after the loss of Spain to the Bourbons in the War of the Spanish Succession. However, Austria and the Habsburgs face the most existential threat to their power since the Turks assaulted Vienna: the ascension of Maria Theresa. Though the Pragmatic Sanction which legitimized her claim to the throne was largely ‘accepted’ by the courts of Europe, their word was not always trustworthy – and with the young Maria Theresa on the throne, the rulers of continent smell weakness. The lands bequeathed to Maria Theresa, however, are not in the most effective state. The Austrian bureaucracy lies inefficient and neglected, the Austrian armies

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 9 are tied up in the Military Frontier preparing for potential Turkish invasion, while the rest of Europe plots. However, Maria Theresa is not alone. She has her husband, of Tuscany, and the loyal Danubian aristocracy. Russia is a stalwart ally, though distractible, and most of the Holy Roman Empire gravitates to Austria through the power of tradition and fear of the French. Still, it will be a long and arduous path to preserve lands of the Habsburgs - will Austria and its rulers preserve through the struggle?

Italy Italy was a divided peninsula in 1740 – The Savoyard kings controlled the north-western mountain passes and Piedmont, the with Lombardy, , and Tuscany, the was controlled by the ancient Venetian Republic, and north-central Italy split between numerous minor duchies. In the center-south, the economically underdeveloped and backward Papal State controlled the lands around to north at Ancona and Ferrara. Finally, in the south, the Spanish control Naples and Sicily through a creaking feudal structure of unpopular aristocrats. Despite the devastation of the peninsula, with its riches fought over since the 16th century, war eternally remains a possibility with Spain, Savoy, and France looking to make new inroads against entrenched Austrian power.

Fenno-Scandinavia Scandinavia is controlled by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Kingdom of -Norway. Both states are not significant powers. Denmark-Norway has too small a population to maintain a competitive army and has not made any significant foreign policy moves since the collapse of the Swedish Empire. The Kingdom of Sweden, its empire having been dismantled in the , is under the threat of further encroachment by Russia and lacks an ability to project power beyond the Baltic. However, it maintains a large standing army and a desire to reclaim its former territories. Sweden may be weakened, but it is a formidable fighting force and may be a useful ally in the wars to come.

Russia Russia is the most foreign of the European powers. It is wealthy and powerful, its armies were victorious against the Ottoman Turks at Azov and against the Swedes in Estonia, and with the building of St. Petersburg, the winds of Westernization and technology have begun to steer the nation in a more modern direction. However, Russia is still thought of as a distant and exotic land; it lacks acceptance among European courts, while the domestic politics of Russia remain cutthroat and unstable. Russia recently has recognized the Pragmatic Sanction, and seems to look favorably upon Maria Theresa; however, their true foreign policy is unknowable with the disputes in St. Petersburg. Russia stands enigmatic on the edge of Europe waiting - but for what?

The Ottoman Empire The Ottoman Empire, the terror of Christendom, stands strong. It has been forced out of Hungary, but it recently recaptured Belgrade and Lesser Wallachia in the Austro-Russian-Turkish War, proving that the Turk is a potent threat. The massive Military Frontier forming the entire southern border of the Austrian realms exists to fight off slave raids, and the Russians and Cossacks fight along the Black Sea against Ottoman advances, despite a recent victory at Azov. The Ottoman Empire is not as strong as it once was; however, it still controls the , Anatolia, the Levant and North Africa and is looking for any chance to regain its strength.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 10 North America

French America France controls the colonies of Nouvelle-France and Louisiana, along with the Antilles and Haiti in the Caribbean. Nouvelle-France and Louisiana are characterized by a few fortified cities, such as Quebec or Nouvelle-Orleans, and a vast network of smaller settlements primarily focused on the fur trade, conducted with the cooperation of the native peoples. The most prominent French native ally was the Wabanaki Confederacy, who fought against the Iroquois in the contested territories between the Thirteen Colonies and the northern reaches of Louisiana. French colonies tended to be well less populated than English colonies. Like the Spanish, there was significant ethnic mixing between West African slaves, European settlers, and natives. The Antilles and Haiti in the Caribbean grew sugar and relied on slave labor, like other European colonies in the area. The French had lost parts of Nouvelle France, most noticeably around the Maritimes, to Britain in previous French and Indian Wars, but are determined to attempt reconquest. French military strategy was like other Europeans in the New World but relied more on great forts such as Louisburg and less on naval strength. France has a strong New World presence, but its is challenged by Britain and Spain.

British America British America is an agglomeration of varying colonies of vastly different types. Personal, corporate, and royal rule all govern the various territories of Britain, and each has different needs and purposes, following different agendas. The Hudson’s Bay Company rules the north through fur trading stations, while personal, company, and royal rule make up 13 separate colonies on the Eastern Seaboard. The British Antilles grows sugar and uses slave labour, sharing this economy with the cotton, indigo, and tobacco producers of the southern portions of the Eastern Seaboard. This contrasts with the north, which was based on cloth, grain, and cotton. All of Britain’s colonies are heavily populated, with massive cities such as Richmond and New York. Britain has a great navy, and strong armies in the New World but must fight off raids and the occasional full war – such as the current conflict with Spain. The War of Jenkin’s Ear is yet another fight over colonial borders and the slave trade – and it must be won, for the honour of the nation and the profit of the merchants. Britain has set up perhaps the most functional and self-reliant colonies of the New World - will they manage to keep their prosperous possessions?

Spanish America Spanish America is a monolithic stretching from the Rio de la Plata in the south to the Rio Grande in the north. Governed by viceroys selected by the , it is vast and varied land. Off the back of enslaved native labor, the Spanish government extracted gold and silver in unimaginable amounts. This had the unintended effect of overloading the international markets and crashing the economy, a disaster which Spain has yet to recover. Despite the dubious material rewards, Spain continues to rule its New World territories, extracting minerals in smaller amounts and pursuing small-scale farming.

The Spanish colonies are governed by a complex caste system dependent on purity of lineage, removing most of the population, which was mixed Native-African-Spaniard, from the political process. This divide between the political and common classes was greater than typical for the period, as the number of ‘pure-blood’ Spaniards was incredibly small for such a large population and territory. As such, government inefficiency was the norm, along with heavy corruption. Spain needs only to preserve its current territories to maintain its (relatively weak) economy, but both Britain and France look greedily upon Spain’s lands, sparking many conflicts, including the

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 11 current: The War of Jenkin’s Ear. It remains to be seen whether Spain can weather the storm and maintain its possessions, or if they will be divided among other victorious powers and Spain’s economy once more put back into crisis.

Other Colonies Denmark-Norway and Courland (A Polish duchy), also control islands in the Caribbean, acting as sugar plantations. Both could be seized without much protest from the home governments, as they are undefended. Portugal controls the massive of Brazil and grows sugar there – the Brazilian economy supporting Portugal’s homeland. Portugal can defend Brazil but is not able to expand beyond the area. There are other prizes in the New World, but they are minor, and likely not worth the effort to seize them.

East Asia

East Asia is a mysterious and faraway land. The Qing Emperor of Cathay and the Shogun who rules in Japan both have closed their borders, only allowing the Portuguese at Macau and the Dutch at Nagasaki to trade. The Dutch control most of the East Indies themselves, growing rich off their monopoly on the Spice Islands and domination of Malacca. There are other states as well, Malayan sultanates and Indonesian kingdoms, but they accept the Dutch or Portuguese presence, shutting out other powers.

In India proper, there is much more competition. Trade in the subcontinent is rich, so nearly all who can project a maritime presence have set up, bought, or conquered trade posts. Competition is most fierce between the French, Dutch, and British, with the Portuguese and Danish being increasing sidelined. The Danish only have the settlement of Tranquebar, while the Portuguese have Cannanore, Goa, and Calicut. The Dutch have effective control over Ceylon and some small mainland settlements at Pulicat and Chinsurah. The British control Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, and several more trading ports, their power concentrated in the Bengal and the west. The French own Pondicherry and Mahe and compete with the British in Bengal and Orissa. Nader Shah of Persia has recently defeated the Mughal Empire and sacked Delhi, and that, along with the revolt of the Marathas, has thrown the politics of India into chaos. There are many smaller kingdoms – Hyderabad and their , Bengal, Mysore, and more. They look for western guns and allies - however, they also see the wealth of the territories stolen by Europeans. With the chaos overwhelming India, it is impossible to know who will end up in control of the subcontinent – but with the riches there, many will surely try.

Social and Political Considerations

Europe in the 18th century was in the midst of a transformation of thought, as European culture and society are exposed to the ideals of the Enlightenment. In this section, the major philosophical and political ideas shaping European society will be discussed – delegates should use this section as a guide to how and why rulers and countries acted how they did, and should keep these concepts in mind when representing their chosen personage.

The – L’etat, c’est moi Europe, for the entire , (with some exceptions in the Holy Roman Empire and Italy) was ruled by leaders (and the associated aristocratic class) claiming a direct mandate from God. The basis of royal legitimacy was that God had chosen their family line to rule whatever lands they controlled and that it was divine will that gave the premise that the people should always obey their ruling monarch.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 12 This concept, known as Divine Right, gives the ruling monarch a paternal position above their subjects as a sort of shepherd – not only to lead their subjects and their nation to earthly prosperity but eventually, to their heavenly reward. This concept also created a link between church and state – although the monarch was a holy representative, they were not the only representative – the clergy too carries out God’s will. Consequently, rulers depended on the support of the clergy to enhance their legitimacy and show that their rule was divinely ordained. This created a focus on a sort of Christian mysticism, with an unending series of parades and festivals to show the monarch’s obvious respect for their position and their faith. The power of Divine Right was twofold – it gave incredible legitimacy, giving monarchs a portion of the massive strength and influence of the Church, and in addition to this, it gave the mark of unholiness to rebels and actors against the regime, as they acted against God’s will. In short, Divine Right automatically made the monarchy ‘good’ in the Christian hierarchy, and all attempts against the status quo became ‘evil’ and ‘wrong’.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, however, Divine Right began morphing into another type of ideology – still monarchism, and based on the same concepts, but different all the same – absolutism. Divine Right and prior European feudal society had been based on a rough power-sharing arrangement: the monarch balancing power with the aristocratic families, all of which had to maintain good relations with the Church. By the 18th century, this structure had become unwieldy and inefficient. The traditional aristocracy had been economically sidelined by the growing wealth of the merchant classes and urban nobility from the emerging proto-industrial economy; meanwhile, the power of the had been forcibly destroyed in parts of Europe due to the (which typically gave religious power in totality to the monarchy) or otherwise had retreated to a less political role to avoid such a fate. This left the monarch with all political power - bar such nations as Great Britain and the Netherlands where the aristocracy and merchant class worked together to maintain some representation. These monarchs, once part of a political system, now were the political system. They now dictated the strength and policy of the state which could be changed on a whim. They had become absolute monarchs, either by design or by accident. The concept of absolutism is most easily summarized by a saying apocryphally credited to Louis XIV of France “L’etat, c’est moi” – the state, it is me.

The Enlightenment – The Nation, by the Ruler, for the People By 1740, the influence of French and Swiss salons and philosophers was felt throughout Europe. Their ideas - focussed on reason, scientific inquiry, and deduction - spread quickly throughout Europe. In this section, political philosophers will be focused upon, as their ideas were the ones that impacted the government structures and policies concerned in this committee most strongly. First was Voltaire who believed that it was ‘right’ for the monarch, as a benevolent leader, to bring happiness to their people and banish evil. He attacked the Church as a creator of superstition and false assurances and believed that for a state to function best, the ruler must be in control, to influence change as a benevolent leader. Then was Montesquieu, who in his Spirit of the Laws argued for instead a limited monarchy balanced by aristocratic institutions, but still argued for a paternalistic state, which provided its citizens with their basic needs, and again attacked the Church as an archaic institution. Afterwards were the Encyclopedists, who created the first Encyclopedia - an attempt to categorize all the world's knowledge, and the Physiocrats, who believed that God had established natural laws to govern the world harmoniously, and with free trade and free industry, the laws would be adhered to and maximum prosperity achieved.

Both represented a new scientific and information-driven way of looking at the state, where the ‘resources’ (citizens, land) were to be categorized, understood, and reorganized into the optimal arrangement by a benevolent government. What this also said was that if a ruler was not carrying out his duties, the people, as sovereign citizens, were able to demand and cause reform, laying the seeds for the revolutions of the end of the

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 13 century. However, this last point was most commonly ignored by the rulers of Europe, and instead, the ideas in the upper part of the paragraph began to be adopted in the 1740s, as ‘enlightened despotism’.

Importantly, most philosophers did not deny the existence of God or try to undermine the legitimacy of monarchical rule. Instead, they attacked the Church, and put sole responsibility on the ruler and government for maintaining prosperity for the people. The Philosophers gave legitimacy to the idea of absolutism separate from the Church but provided a different obligation for the legitimacy of rulers - the need to try to make life better for their subjects. In the minds of the sovereigns of Europe, twisted by their megalomania and grand ambition, this occasionally meant attempts at local administration, but more typically resulted in attempts to conquer more and more land and resources for the state. After all, domestic reform was often challenging and often faced opposition, but the glory of war was always popular and efficient at quelling unrest. The ideas of the Enlightenment sent states down a path of attempted self-improvement, changing the basis of legitimacy from religion to ‘the betterment of their subjects’. This was a transformation yet unprecedented in the , and only with time could the effects of this revolution of thought could be seen.

Kabinettskriege – Wars in the 18th Century War in the 18th century is entirely foreign from the modern concept– due to absolutism and enlightened despotism, war was more a continuation of personal diplomacy between the various kings and princes, it was an automatic result of bad relations or failed diplomatic resolution, as opposed to a last-resort option. War was also much more limited – the ability of rulers to mobilize society to could and would not be achieved until the desperation of the revolutionary period in the 1790s; instead, wars were a limited affair between personal levies. The term Kabinettskriege, or Cabinet Wars, would come to define war in this time. Delegates should take care to realize that the army corps, usually exclusive to the nobility were typically small, and armies - due to the lack of mass production and restriction by tradition or refusal of support by the local aristocracy - were much smaller than their theoretical limit. Besides, war goals were limited by the personal desires and thoughts of the rulers directing them.

Wars were defined by groups of armed forces meeting in formalized warfare. The winner would continue forward, and the loser would retreat. Once a suitable amount of territory was taken or lost, diplomats were sent from court to court to resolve the conflict. Plunder and pillage were rare (compared to earlier periods), and events like The Deluge in Poland-Lithuania became the exception rather than the rule. Even if cities were taken, they were not typically further destroyed, and instead were relatively peacefully occupied till they were freed, ceded, or the war ended. Most European courts, even if they were at war, kept cordial relations with each other. As a result, another feature of Cabinet Wars, the shifting alliance system, was possible. Because war was not an existential threat to the nation and the enemy was not entirely hostile, countries could easily switch sides back and forth – with the shame of dishonour only a minor slight – being part of a specific faction in a war was a much more flexible affair than the modern era. Secret treaties and clauses were common, and with enough diplomatic effort, any nation could be convinced to change sides.

However, war was restricted in other ways: territory could not be arbitrarily given out – territory was organized in an archaic system of titular control, where even if a ruler received a territory they would have to bow to local custom and maintain the ancient rights of whichever or that recently had been conquered. Land was conquered in blocs; if a ruler maintained the historic privileges of the population, any land could be swapped around with a general lack of local unrest as local populations were quick to adapt to foreign rule. Nationalism was not yet a concept, so entirely disconnected or never-owned territory could be quickly integrated if the ruler bowed to local custom and held the appropriate title which gave them divine rule over the land. This made war

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 14 even more limited, as rulers fought for often a single title and then switched sides or stopped fighting altogether once it had been achieved.

Violent conflict in the era of Kabinettskriege was more formal and limited – despite the struggles of the absolutist rulers to conquer as much as they could, tradition and honor restricted wars and peace settlements, creating an environment of conflict entirely foreign to the modern era.

King-Electors and Empress-Archduchesses - A Guide to Royal Titles The social hierarchy of 18th century Europe was based on the principle of nobility. Those who had higher noble titles were automatically the social-betters of those below them and could ascend to positions of power and privilege unimaginable to the common masses. A title proved that one was of importance, and gave access to high society – without, social advancement was almost impossible. Even so-called republics, such as the Netherlands or Venice still valued noble blood as a qualification to govern, having the belief, as with virtually all the rest of Europe, that titles ensured good breeding and therefore a ‘superior’ personage. The majority of those with titles were part of the lesser nobility – a sort of pan-European class of aristocrats who formed nearly the entire upper-class of the various kingdoms and republics. Their titles varied according to local custom and tradition – be it English or French cavaliers. These minor aristocrats were descended from old feudal landholders, knightly classes, or ancient merchant families, and despite the differences in origin and name, were roughly equal in status as generalized ‘higher society’.

Despite claims to the contrary by the holders of the titles, lesser noble titles also did not typically give any automatic political power, their former powers being absorbed by the new absolutism sweeping Europe. In addition, despite the hereditary nature of titles, the upper class was not always fixed in size. Affairs, random ennobling by the local ruler, foreign migration, war, and civil disputes caused the size of the lesser nobility to vary massively in size from time to time and country to country. Virtually anyone could become a noble by the desire of the ruling monarch, or by other sorts of legitimization, and the chaos of the conflict of the 18th century often wiped whole families out. As such, the lesser noble titles mattered less as a formal hierarchy but acted simply as a class marker, a way of differentiation from the so-called ‘common rabble’. However, the lesser nobles were not the only title holders – there were the higher nobles - and to them their rank was of utmost importance. (Note that the following applies to most of Europe bar Great Britain, where the power of Parliament and the weakness of the monarchy made most titles irrelevant to status bar the King or Queen themselves).

Titles defined legitimacy, land and power to the higher nobility – for example, the title of Duke of Parma gave the holder not just an addition to their name, but sovereignty and control over a portion of territory. Wars were fought for titles, not directly for land. The political geography of the continent was defined by these crowns. If a ruler sent a governor, it was not to a department or a , but to the Windic March or the Khanate of Crimea. Peace and war were dictated by the passage of royal titles from one ruler to another, as can be illustrated by the main crisis of the committee, the issue of the Pragmatic Sanction and the Austrian Succession. However, not all titles were equal, and as such the following list was assembled for the convenience of delegates to show the hierarchy of royal title and their relative power compared to others: (From most powerful to least, European only, not including Britain)

• Emperor – Claiming themselves as successors to ancient Rome, only the most powerful nations could declare themselves Empires – at 1740, there were two (arguably three) – the and the Russian Czar (along with the Ottoman Sultan).

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 15 • King (, Archduke) – The highest title possible for those not claiming lineage from Rome. Common throughout Europe from Spain to Poland-Lithuania (itself a union between a Kingdom and an Archduchy). Within the Holy Roman Empire, there was traditionally only a single Kingdom, Bohemia; therefore, nations seeking to raise themselves to that status used creative workarounds – Grand were common, along with the uniquely Austrian title of Archduke and the bizarre Prussian claim to be Kings-in-Prussia (Prussia proper being outside the domain of the Holy Roman Empire). However, Grand Duchies were possible outside the Holy Roman Empire, although rare – and were usually treated as slightly lower in status than Kingdoms.

• Dukes and Electors – Dukes were the next level of title under Kings, being usually reserved for the larger of minor realms and major vassals within Kingdoms. Electors were a unique creation of the Holy Roman Empire, voting for who gained the title of Emperor – they were typically treated at the same level as Dukes.

• Prince, and – Prince was a title not only reserved for heirs but also for the smaller realms, most commonly in the Holy Roman Empire. Margrave and Viceroy were titles that were nearly always reserved for rulers who guarded colonial territories or national frontiers, nearly always heavily militarized lands, or leftovers from a bloodier time.

• , , and – Rulers of the smallest territories.

• Pope, Archbishop/Primate, Bishop, Abbott, and Mother Superior – The titles listed all formed the titular ecclesiastical hierarchy – the titles of the rulers of sovereign-theocratic states. Virtually all the European theocracies in the period were Catholic, and as such they followed the structure of that church, with Popes above Archbishops (Primates being archbishops with special honors), above Bishops, above the controllers of monasteries and nunneries. In addition, there are Patriarchs, who are the heads of the Eastern churches, and Cardinals, who are princes who serve the Pope.

Note that all above titles could be held simultaneous (including religious positions) - shown by the full length of the (claimed) title of Empress Maria Theresa:

Maria Theresa, by the Grace of God, Dowager Empress of the Romans, Queen of Hungary, of Bohemia, of Dalmatia, of Croatia, of Slavonia, etc.; Archduchess of Austria; Duchess of Burgundy, of , of , and of Carniola; Grand of Transylvania; Margravine of ; Duchess of Brabant, of Limburg, of Luxemburg, of , of Württemberg, of Upper and Lower , of Milan, of Mantua, of Parma, of , of Guastalla, of Auschwitz, and of Zator; Princess of ; Princely Countess of Habsburg, of , of Tyrol, of Hainault, of Kyburg, of , and of Gradisca; Margravine of , of Upper and ; Countess of Namur; of the Wendish Mark and of Mechlin; Dowager Duchess of Lorraine and Bar, Dowager Grand Duchess of Tuscany.*

As such was a summary of European titles and noble convention that will be hopefully useful for delegates in ordering and understanding the structure of the political structures of the 18th century.

*In common discussion, titles were usually changed to reflect the gender of the holder, as shown above, but officially most rulers, whether female or male, were crowned under the ‘male’ form of the title – the committee will use the gendered versions for the sake of convenience.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 16 Current Issues

Listed here are pressing issues concerning European and global politics in 1740. Delegates should take care to address these matters in their position papers, for these will be the major disputes of the committee – though be aware that not all topics are relevant to all delegates – write only on the ones that have a direct impact on your nation. Discussion questions follow each description – these act as a preliminary guide to research and writing. Note also that these issues are international concerns and domestic issues should be covered in position papers as well despite not being discussed here.

The Pragmatic Sanction In 1713, Emperor Charles VI issued an edict legalizing female inheritance of the Habsburg hereditary possessions (Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Milan, Parma, and the Austrian Netherlands). This superseded the prior 1703 Mutual Pact of Succession by the previous Emperor Joseph I (Charles VI’s brother), which allowed women to accede to the throne but had prioritized Emperor Joseph daughter’s Maria Josephina and Maria Amalia, as heirs. However, in a secret session in 1713, Charles VI passed the Pragmatic Sanction which leapfrogged over Maria Josephina and Maria Amalia as heirs and would pass the throne directly to Maria Theresa, (Charles VI’s daughter) upon the Emperor’s death.

Charles VI would spend the rest of his life getting this change approved by the foreign courts of Europe. France and Spain, after the 1738 Treaty of Vienna ending the War of Polish Succession, recognized the Sanction in exchange for Lorraine and Naples and Sicily, respectively. Britain and the United Provinces recognized it in exchange for the closure of the Ostend East India Company, which had been competing with them in the East Indies. The King-Elector of Saxony, Augustus III recognized it after the Austrian defense of his inheritance of Poland-Lithuania in the War of the Polish Succession, and Russia, Prussia and nearly all the rest of Europe followed. Only one nation had not recognized the Sanction at the time of Charles VI’s death: Bavaria, whose King Charles VII was a direct pretender to the Austrian throne. However, now Charles VI is dead and Maria Theresa, young and inexperienced, sits on the throne. Now is the time for the courts of Europe to renew their vows of acceptance of her ascension – but now, there may be changes to the plan.

There is a total of 4 candidates for the Habsburg throne including the Maria Theresa, who currently sits on it, listed below:

Maria Theresa – Recognized by most of Europe by the Pragmatic Sanction, daughter of the late Emperor Charles VI: in theory, the most ‘legal’ candidate with most of Europe supposedly supporting her.

Maria Josephina – Wife of King-Elector Augustus III of Saxony and Poland-Lithuania – despite her husband recognizing the Pragmatic Sanction, she still has claim to the Habsburg lands, with a special demand for Bohemia. She did not recognize the Pragmatic Sanction, instead referring to the Mutual Pact of Succession. Marginally ‘legal’, but her claim would require her husband to go against his word.

Elector Charles VII – Charles VII was part Habsburg by blood, descended from Emperor Ferdinand I, and married to Maria Amalia who had a claim but had prior renounced it. Charles VII, who had repudiated his wife’s renunciation, had a double claim not only claiming her inheritance but showing an ancient document that his ancestor Anne and her descendants, daughter of Emperor Ferdinand I, had been made heir following the extinction of the Habsburg male line. However, the document stated all legal Habsburg heirs had to be extinct instead of male, contesting Charles VII’s claim. However, he had not recognized the Pragmatic Sanction, making his claim the most ‘legal’ of the pretenders.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 17 King Philip V – The least ‘legal’ and most bizarre of all the possible claims. King Philip, before his forced recognition of the Sanction after the War of the Spanish Succession, maintained a claim to the Austrian throne. As he was the political successor to the Spanish Habsburgs, the senior branch of the Habsburg family before they died out, he believed he was the automatic successor to the junior Habsburg Austrian branch provided they had no heirs, as the Spanish Habsburgs previously had been. This claim was based on majorly fabricated medieval documents and a ‘creative’ understanding of the laws of succession. Despite these issues with legitimacy, King Philip and the had a claim – even if they had sworn against it.

Discussion Questions 1. Did your nation recognize the Pragmatic Sanction? Why or why not?

2. What could your nation gain from recognizing the Sanction again, or rejecting it?

3. Should your nation reject or recognize the Pragmatic Sanction?

The Holy Roman Empire The Holy Roman Empire, as noted above in the ‘Overview of the World’ was a complex political body, ruled by an elected Emperor of the Romans. The Habsburgs had controlled this position since 1438, and despite its steadily weakening political power, the title had major prestige and was treated as a part of the Habsburg patrimony. However, with the ascension of Maria Theresa, an issue was presented: the throne of the Holy Roman Empire could only be sat on by a man. The Habsburgs have already accounted for this problem and have put forth Francis of Lorraine, Grand Duke of Tuscany and husband of Maria Theresa as the candidate. However, the electors of the Empire have to be won over, and many have vested interests not necessarily in line with those of Maria Theresa’s. The electors of the Empire are, in 1740:

1. The Archbishopric of

2. The Archbishopric of

3. The Archbishopric of Mainz

4. The King of Bohemia (under Austria)

5. The Elector of the Palatinate

6. The Elector of Bavaria

7. The Elector of Saxony

8. The Elector of Brandenburg (under Prussia)

9. The Elector of Hanover (under Great Britain)

The Archbishoprics tended to vote in a group and usually favored Catholic Austria, but with them and Bohemia, Austria does not have a majority. Austria needs to get one of the other electors on their side, or Maria Theresa will lack a major part of her inheritance – and there are a great many powers which greatly desire to be the Emperor of the Romans and the new hegemon of Germany.

Discussion Questions 1. Who does your nation support for Holy Roman Emperor? Why?

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 18 The Balance of Power in Italy Italy has been a battleground between the French, Austrians, and Spanish since the 15th century, and disputes continued to 1740. After the War of the Spanish Succession, the peninsula had been partitioned as thus: In the northwest, there was the Kingdom of Savoy, the most powerful independent Italian kingdom – it wished to conquer Lombardy, but was forced into friendship with Austria through fear of the French. In Lombardy, itself along with Parma and smaller duchies, Austria ruled, the possessions captured from the Spanish after their defeat in their War of Succession. To the east was Venice, ancient but now with no real political power. The minor states of central Italy were also largely irrelevant to the political sphere, with them swearing allegiance to whoever seemed to be winning the current war. In Tuscany, Francis of Lorraine ruled the duchy as a personal fiefdom and vassal of Austria. Further south still was the Papal State, entirely underdeveloped and without real power, remaining independent like Venice through cultural importance and tradition. In the extreme South was Naples and Sicily, both Spanish client kingdoms. The Spanish desired, especially with the influence of Queen Elizabeth Farnese, who was born in Parma, to reconquer their lost northern duchies. The Savoyards wanted Lombardy, the Austrians wanted to maintain their current possession, and the French wanted Savoy and whatever other parts of Italy they could conquer. Italy was a battleground of influence, and it was only time until war broke out again.

Discussion Questions 1. Does your nation have an agenda in Italy? What is it?

2. What would be the optimal balance of power in Italy?

The New World The New World is a battleground between three powers – France, Britain, and Spain. Britain controls the Eastern Seaboard and the far north, along with small pieces of the Caribbean, France controls the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, along with most of the Antilles and Haiti, while Spain has the entirety of South America (bar Brazil) and Mexico, along with Cuba. Each nation has a different colonial policy regarding colonial settlement and the natives, but each is attempting to extract the most wealth out of the New World as possible, to invest in armies and the economy of the homeland. The status and condition of the colonial population were of secondary concern, with rulers only caring if issues affected profits.

The French colonies and the British north focus on the fur trade, while the economy of the Eastern Seaboard is based on cotton, tobacco, and cloth. The Caribbean grew sugar, the most lucrative cash crop of the whole New World. Spanish mainland colonies mined minerals, and slave labor was more and more common the further south in North America. Fur trading was typically done with native allies who usually aided in war, the most famous being the Wabanaki and Iroquois Confederacies both between Louisiana and the 13 Colonies. Conflict had continued intermittently for the past several decades, all part of the overarching French and Indian Wars (in British terminology).

The current conflict, the War of Jenkin’s Ear between Britain and Spain, named for an incident involving a British ship, was only one of many different conflicts, typically over economic or territorial rights; in the case of the War of Jenkin’s Ear, the Florida-Georgia border and the right of British merchants to sell slaves in the Spanish Caribbean. War was also constant in border , as settlers eternally encroached on native lands. The French built great fortresses to guard their cities, and the British built a massive merchant marine to ready themselves to supply possibly besieged territories. Spain struggled, however, to hold its massive territories and was unable

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 19 to mobilize its immense resources with its non-existent administration. The fight for supremacy in the New World has gone on for decades – soon, something has to give.

Discussion Questions 1. What is the colonial policy and territory of your nation?

2. What economic and political interests does your nation have in the New World?

3. What are the current disputes your nation has in the New World, and how would they be solved?

East Asia India has been thrown into the chaos with the Persian sack of Delhi and the collapse of the Mughals. With the Marathas on the rise and minor kingdoms declaring their independence, now more than ever is an opportunity for Europeans to try to control more of the subcontinent. China and Japan have closed their borders with only Nagasaki and Macau acting as entry points, the Middle East is hostile, and the Dutch have a monopoly on Indonesia and the Malay Peninsula. India is the most open venue for lucrative eastern trade. The Dutch, the British, and the French - along with the Danish and Portuguese to a lesser extent - compete for trade posts and territory. European competition is focused in the south, and along the eastern coast of Orissa and into the Bengal Delta. As native rulers grow more and more hostile to ever-growing colonies of Europeans, it has become increasingly difficult to expand control in India. However, the rewards are great: incredible amounts of gold and jewels, ivory, and seemingly endless space for plantations of cotton, dye, and opium. India is a prize, and it must be won. With political chaos in the north, there is a vacuum of power, and a nation will seize the opportunity.

Discussion Questions 1. What territories does your country own in East Asia? What is the purpose of owning them?

2. What resources does your nation need in East Asia? What and who is its competition?

3. What does your nation need to do ‘win’ in East Asia, and how will it achieve that?

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 20 Bibliography

Edwards, W., M.A/. (1948). Notes on European History(3rd ed., Vol. III). London, UK: Rivingtons.

Johnson, G., & Bayly, C. (1988). The new Cambridge history of India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Magris, C. (n.d.). Danube.

Montesquieu, C. D., Nugent, T., & Prichard, J. V. (1912). The spirit of the laws. New York: D. Appleton.

ROUSSEAU, J. (n.d.). SOCIAL CONTRACT.

White, J. L. (1966). The origins of modern Europe. New York: Washington Square Press.

Winder, S. (n.d.). Danubia.

Winder, S. (n.d.). Germania.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 21