The War of the Austrian Succession

Introduction

The War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) was one of the defining conflicts of eighteenth-century Europe, not because it produced dramatic territorial transformations or enduring peace settlements, but because it exposed the fragile foundations upon which European order rested. It was a war born from a legal dispute, inflated by dynastic ambition, sustained by military opportunism, and concluded with a weary recognition that force alone could not permanently reorder the balance of power. Though often overshadowed by the Seven Years’ War that followed less than a decade later, the War of the Austrian Succession deserves close attention as a moment when Europe collectively tested the limits of inheritance law, diplomacy, and military reform.

At its core, the war revolved around the right of Maria Theresa of Habsburg to inherit the composite monarchy assembled by her father, Emperor Charles VI. Yet this legal question quickly expanded into a general European war, drawing in nearly every major power of the era. The conflict spread from the fields of Bohemia to the plains of Lombardy, from the ports of the Caribbean to the coasts of India, and from the North Sea to the Alps. It was a war that fused dynastic logic with emerging notions of state interest, revealing both the persistence of old regimes and the early stirrings of modern geopolitics.

Europe on the Eve of War

Eighteenth-century Europe was governed by a delicate equilibrium. The great powers—Austria, France, Britain, Prussia, Russia, Spain, and the Dutch Republic—were bound together by treaties, marriages, and mutual suspicion. No single state could dominate without provoking a coalition against it, yet all sought advantage where opportunity allowed. War was not an aberration in this system but an accepted instrument of policy, regulated by convention and justified by precedent.

The Habsburg Monarchy occupied a particularly precarious position within this order. It was less a unified state than a collection of territories—Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, the Austrian Netherlands, parts of Italy—held together by dynastic authority rather than administrative uniformity. Charles VI spent much of his reign attempting to secure international recognition for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, a decree that allowed his daughter Maria Theresa to inherit these lands in the absence of a male heir. Most European powers formally recognized the Pragmatic Sanction, but many did so with reservations, viewing it as a diplomatic convenience rather than a binding moral commitment.

Meanwhile, other powers were undergoing significant transformation. Prussia, under Frederick William I, had built a formidable army disproportionate to its size. France, though still the most populous state in Europe, struggled with financial weakness and strategic uncertainty. Britain increasingly defined its interests in commercial and maritime terms, while Spain sought to recover territories lost earlier in the century. Russia was emerging as a decisive eastern force, though its involvement in central European affairs remained intermittent.

This volatile mixture meant that the death of Charles VI in October 1740 was not merely a dynastic transition; it was an invitation. Within weeks, rivals began probing the strength of the Habsburg inheritance, questioning whether a young woman could command loyalty, raise armies, and defend such an unwieldy realm.

Maria Theresa and the Crisis of Legitimacy

Maria Theresa was twenty-three years old when she inherited her father’s dominions. She was inexperienced in government, pregnant with her fourth child, and initially excluded from the imperial title itself, which could only be held by a man. Yet what she lacked in preparation, she compensated for with determination. Her legitimacy, however, was constantly challenged—not only by foreign powers but also by factions within her own lands.

The crisis of legitimacy surrounding Maria Theresa was multifaceted. Legally, her claim rested on the Pragmatic Sanction, a document that had been accepted but never truly internalized by Europe’s political elite. Culturally, the idea of a woman ruling such extensive territories conflicted with prevailing assumptions about authority and warfare. Politically, the Habsburg Monarchy’s administrative weaknesses encouraged rivals to believe that it could be dismantled with relative ease.

The most dramatic challenge came from Prussia. In December 1740, Frederick II—later known as Frederick the Great—invaded the wealthy province of Silesia. His justification was a tenuous dynastic claim, but his motivation was strategic: Silesia was rich, defensible, and economically valuable. Frederick’s move transformed a succession dispute into a general war. It also signaled the arrival of Prussia as a major European power willing to gamble aggressively.

Other claimants soon followed. Charles Albert, Elector of Bavaria, asserted a claim to the Habsburg lands and later secured election as Holy Roman Emperor. Spain revived its ambitions in Italy, while France supported anti-Habsburg forces in Germany. What had begun as a legal question became a contest over the very survival of the Habsburg state.

The Opening Campaigns and the Shock of Prussia

The early years of the war were disastrous for Austria. Prussian forces defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Mollwitz in 1741, demonstrating the effectiveness of Frederick’s drilled infantry and exposing weaknesses in Austrian command. The loss of Silesia was not merely territorial; it was psychological. It shattered the myth of Habsburg military invincibility and encouraged further aggression.

Simultaneously, French and Bavarian forces advanced into Bohemia, capturing Prague and enabling Charles Albert to be crowned King of Bohemia. In 1742, he was elected Holy Roman Emperor as Charles VII, a stunning humiliation for the Habsburgs, who had dominated the imperial title for centuries. At one point, it appeared that Maria Theresa might lose not only Silesia but the imperial dignity itself.

Yet these setbacks also galvanized resistance. Maria Theresa famously appealed to the Hungarian Diet, presenting herself as a threatened monarch and invoking the loyalty of her subjects. The Hungarian nobility responded with enthusiasm, raising troops and reaffirming their allegiance. This moment became central to Maria Theresa’s later image as a ruler who inspired devotion through personal resolve.

By 1742, Austria had stabilized its position. Through a combination of military recovery and diplomatic maneuvering, Maria Theresa forced Frederick to accept the Treaty of Breslau, which confirmed Prussian possession of Silesia in exchange for withdrawal from the broader conflict. Though painful, this concession allowed Austria to concentrate on other enemies and preserve the core of its monarchy.

War Beyond Central Europe

The War of the Austrian Succession was never confined to Germany or Austria. It was a genuinely international conflict, reflecting the global reach of European empires. Britain and France, though initially cautious, soon found themselves at war, their rivalry extending to colonial theaters across the world.

In North America, the conflict became known as King George’s War. Fighting erupted along the frontiers of New England and New France, involving colonial militias, Indigenous allies, and European regulars. The most significant event was the capture of the French fortress of Louisbourg by New England forces in 1745, a remarkable feat that demonstrated the growing military capacity of the British colonies. Yet the eventual return of Louisbourg to France in the peace settlement frustrated colonial expectations and foreshadowed future tensions between Britain and its American subjects.

In the Caribbean and along the African coast, naval engagements and raids disrupted trade and tested maritime supremacy. In India, the war intersected with the struggle between the British and French East India Companies. Though the fighting there was limited, it marked an early stage in the contest that would eventually lead to British dominance of the subcontinent.

These global dimensions underscore an important aspect of the war: while its origins were dynastic, its conduct was increasingly shaped by commercial and imperial considerations. Control of trade routes, colonies, and naval bases mattered as much as hereditary claims, signaling a gradual shift in the nature of great-power conflict.

Diplomacy, Alliances, and the Art of Survival

One of the most striking features of the War of the Austrian Succession was the fluidity of alliances. Traditional rivalries coexisted with pragmatic cooperation, and ideological consistency was often sacrificed for strategic advantage. Austria, historically opposed to Britain in some contexts, found in Britain its most reliable ally. British subsidies and military support proved crucial to Austria’s survival, reflecting Britain’s interest in preventing French dominance on the continent.

France, despite early successes, struggled to translate battlefield victories into lasting political gains. Its support for Bavaria brought the imperial title briefly out of Habsburg hands, but maintaining influence in Germany proved difficult. Moreover, French resources were stretched thin by commitments in multiple theaters, exposing structural weaknesses in its military and financial systems.

Spain pursued its own agenda, focusing on regaining influence in Italy. Spanish forces, often coordinated with France, fought in Lombardy and the Kingdom of Naples, achieving mixed results. These campaigns highlighted the persistent importance of Italy as a battleground for European prestige and power.

Diplomacy during the war was continuous and often cynical. Treaties were signed, broken, and renegotiated with little regard for consistency. The willingness of Frederick of Prussia to make separate peace agreements exemplified this opportunism. His primary objective—securing Silesia—guided his actions more than loyalty to any alliance.

The Second Silesian War and Renewed Conflict

Just as Austria began to recover, Prussia struck again. In 1744, Frederick reentered the war, launching what became known as the Second Silesian War. His decision was driven by fear that a resurgent Austria might attempt to reclaim Silesia. By attacking preemptively, Frederick sought to lock in his gains.

The renewed conflict saw major battles at Hohenfriedberg and Soor, where Prussian forces once again demonstrated tactical superiority. Frederick’s leadership, combining audacity with disciplined execution, earned him a reputation as one of Europe’s foremost commanders. For Austria, these defeats were sobering reminders that reform was essential.

Despite setbacks, Austria avoided collapse. Through determined resistance and effective diplomacy, Maria Theresa maintained her core territories and preserved her claim to her inheritance. The Second Silesian War ended in 1745 with Prussia’s possession of Silesia reaffirmed, cementing a rivalry that would dominate German politics for decades.

Military Experience and Reform

The War of the Austrian Succession served as a crucible for military innovation and reform. For Austria, the early defeats exposed systemic problems in recruitment, training, and command. In response, Maria Theresa initiated reforms that would strengthen the army and central administration. These changes did not immediately reverse Prussian advantages, but they laid the groundwork for Austria’s later resilience.

Prussia, by contrast, emerged from the war with enhanced prestige. Its army, already respected, became the benchmark against which others measured themselves. Yet this success carried risks. The acquisition of Silesia brought new wealth and manpower, but it also positioned Prussia as a target. Frederick’s gains ensured that future conflicts would involve coalitions determined to curb Prussian expansion.

Other states also drew lessons from the war. Britain refined its amphibious operations and colonial coordination. France recognized, albeit slowly, the need for administrative and fiscal reform. Across Europe, officers and statesmen debated tactics, logistics, and the relationship between military power and state capacity.

The Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle

By 1748, exhaustion set in. None of the major powers had achieved decisive victory, and the costs of continued war outweighed potential gains. Negotiations culminated in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which largely restored the status quo ante bellum—with one crucial exception: Prussia retained Silesia.

Maria Theresa was recognized as the legitimate ruler of her hereditary lands, and her husband, Francis Stephen, was acknowledged as Holy Roman Emperor. Colonial conquests were mostly returned, including Louisbourg, much to the dismay of British colonists. The treaty reflected a desire for stability rather than justice, prioritizing balance over resolution.

The peace was widely regarded as unsatisfactory. It resolved immediate hostilities but left underlying tensions unresolved. Austria had survived but at the cost of a rich province and imperial prestige. Prussia had gained territory but earned powerful enemies. Britain and France had fought across the globe with little to show for it. The sense that the war had settled nothing substantial was pervasive.

Consequences and Historical Significance

The War of the Austrian Succession reshaped Europe in subtle but lasting ways. It confirmed the decline of unquestioned Habsburg dominance within the Holy Roman Empire and marked the rise of Prussia as a great power. It demonstrated that legal agreements like the Pragmatic Sanction were only as strong as the armies willing to enforce them.

For Maria Theresa, the war was formative. Though she lost Silesia, she gained experience, legitimacy, and determination. Her subsequent reign would be characterized by reform and modernization, driven by the lessons of vulnerability learned during the conflict. In this sense, the war strengthened Austria even as it diminished it territorially.

The conflict also highlighted the increasingly global nature of European warfare. Colonial and commercial interests were no longer peripheral but integral to great-power rivalry. This trend would accelerate in subsequent wars, culminating in truly global conflicts later in the century.

Finally, the war revealed the limits of eighteenth-century diplomacy. Treaties could end wars, but they could not erase ambition or rivalry. The unresolved issues of Silesia, colonial competition, and alliance politics ensured that peace would be temporary. Indeed, within eight years, Europe would be engulfed in the Seven Years’ War, a conflict that built directly upon the foundations laid between 1740 and 1748.

Conclusion

The War of the Austrian Succession was more than a dispute over inheritance. It was a testing ground for emerging powers, a proving moment for rulers, and a demonstration of the fragile balance that governed Europe. Its battles, treaties, and personalities illuminate a world in transition still governed by dynastic logic, yet increasingly shaped by state interest and global competition.