1635]

Richelieu's diplomacy

145

policy of those who preceded him. The Spanish alliance of the Regency, the weakness of Luynes, not less than the half-veiled hostilities hitherto conducted by Richelieu himself, all led to this issue. Dynastically the war was a new phase in the blood feud that began on the bridge of Montereau and was fought out at Morat, Nancy, Pavia, and in all the chancelleries of Europe. But still more fundamental as a predisposing cause were those blind and unconscious forces that impel nations to complete their own existence, to achieve their own realisation, to hurl down whatever opposes or threatens to encumber, to sacrifice all else that is most precious to the attainment of self-determined organic unity. National forces were working - not only in France - for the unification of Germany, for the centralisation of the Iberian peninsula, even for the consolidation of Italy. But in the countries swayed by the Habsburg coalition the racial impulses were less clear, the national consciousness less distinct. And the dynastic bond which united them was wholly artificial; it expressed no common national feeling; it could only exploit, it could not satisfy, national aspirations; even in Austria and Castile the Habsburg rule had something of the character of an alien domination. Thus Spain was sacrificed to Milan and Naples, and above all to the Netherlands. Germany was sacrificed to Austria, and Austria to the dream of a Habsburg supremacy in Europe. Louis XIII, Richelieu, and their successors were fighting in a more legitimate cause, the cause of a national kingdom. To this, more than to any wit of statesman or skill of soldiers, such success as they achieved is due.

This becomes the more clear when we observe the very moderate measure of wisdom which inspired the counsels and the action of France in this momentous period. Of diplomacy, indeed, Richelieu was a supreme master. Even in Italy he contrived to assemble a respectable coalition of Savoy, Mantua, and Parma, to confront the predominant Power. In Germany it was his object, we cannot doubt, to prolong the war. This he could only do by the aid of Sweden. Sweden was invaluable to him; yet he bought her aid at the paltry price of a million livres a year, to which was subsequently added a small contingent of troops. Sweden was threatened on the east and the west by the jealous Powers of Poland and Denmark. He persuaded Poland to refuse the tempting offers made to her, and to conclude a twenty-six years' truce with Sweden (1635). He kept Denmark quiet, and amused her King with the futile duties of a self-important mediator. Sweden was anxious for peace, and would have accepted it at any time if the possession of Pomerania, or perhaps a substantial part of it, had been guaranteed to her. He succeeded in persuading her that no terms which Austria could offer would be secure unless they were safeguarded by a general peace, in which the interests of all the enemies of Habsburg domination should receive due recognition.

In order to preserve the illusion that such a settlement was within

C. M. H. IV.

10

146

Negotiations for peace

[1636-42 view, he maintained, from 1636 onwards, continuous negotiations for peace. In his manœuvres to render these negotiations abortive, he was materially aided by the real unwillingness of Spain and Austria to conclude a general peace, or to negotiate with the hostile or unfriendly Powers as a coalition. But he also used every weapon that the diplomatic armoury contains. Negotiations require preliminaries; preliminaries raise questions which may seem formal although they are really vital. Such was the question of safe-conducts for the plenipotentiaries of the various Powers to be represented at the projected Congresses. Under this head Richelieu contrived to raise the questions of the recognition. of Dutch independence, of the rights of the Duchess of Savoy as guardian of her infant son, of the rights in Hesse-Cassel of the Landgrave's widow, of the status of the parties to the Treaty of Prague, and, more important still, of the right of the several Estates of the Empire to negotiate on a footing of independence with the King of Hungary and Bohemia, who happened to be also the Emperor. He also made capital out of such objections as could be urged against the validity of the election of Ferdinand III. The discussion of such matters kept the diplomats of Europe at work till 1641, when at length a compromise on these points was reached, and it was agreed that the plenipotentiaries should assemble and negotiate with those of the Emperor, France and her allies at Münster, Sweden and hers at Osnabrück. In the interval he had persuaded Sweden, in 1636, 1638, and 1641, to renew her agreement against a separate peace. The first of the compacts was so precarious that it never received ratification; the last was not for a term of years, but until the end of the war. He had the less difficulty in persuading Sweden to keep her engagements, since it gradually became clear that France desired at any rate no separate peace. When Sweden demanded as the price of her alliance that France should guarantee the Swedish conquests in Pomerania, Richelieu, or d'Avaux on his behalf, cleverly countered by requesting a similar guarantee of the French conquests in Lorraine. No more was heard of the inconvenient suggestion. When propositions were made for a general truce, France insisted on the condition of uti possidetis, and refused to maintain the full war subsidy during any period of truce. By these means the coalition was preserved; Swedish arms kept the Emperor and his German allies fully occupied; and the victories of Banér and Torstensson redounded to the profit of France.

With the United Provinces similar methods were employed; but here the difficulty was less, since Spain would not consent to the recognition of Dutch independence - the indispensable condition of peace in this quarter.

But in the sphere of military operations far less ability was displayed. France was acting on interior lines, from a consolidated territory, against the scattered possessions of Spain. Sea-power was thus a momentous

1635-42]

French conduct of the war

147

factor; and France had created, by the efforts of the Cardinal, an imposing navy. Yet for two years (1635-7) France acquiesced in the occupation by Spain of the two islands of Lérins, which blocked the French Mediterranean trade. Her naval achievements were confined to victories off Guetaria (near San Sebastian), August 28, 1638; off Genoa on September 2 of the same year; and at Cadiz in 1640. None of these actions was of capital importance; and the great victories were left to Van Tromp and the Dutch. No substantial use was made of the naval superiority which these engagements seem to show. The victory of Guetaria did not prevent the French defeat at Fuenterrabia. The navy protected the land operations in Roussillon and Catalonia; but little else can be placed to its credit.

On land immense efforts were made; five, six, or seven separate armies were kept up; some 150,000 men were constantly in the field; money was ruthlessly extorted and recklessly spent. But the general conduct of operations reveals no bold offensive, no concentration on a skilfully chosen objective. At the outset, indeed, Richelieu contemplated the conquest of the Spanish Netherlands in co-operation with the Dutch, and with the aid of disaffected subjects of the King of Spain. The Dutch were slow and cautious, and their conception of war was a series of laborious sieges. Had they been left to make war after their own fashion, they would yet have effected valuable diversions; while a more enterprising enemy might have won the lion's share of the spoil. But, after the failure of the first campaign French efforts in this direction, though costly and exhausting, were never pushed with determination. In 1636, indeed, France was hard put to it to defend her northern frontiers. French activity had been transferred to Franche Comté and the Rhinelands. Taking advantage of the opportunity thus offered, united Spanish and Imperial forces in July invaded Picardy, captured La Capelle, Le Catelet, Roye, Corbie, and threatened Paris itself. In due time they retreated, and the fortresses were sooner or later recovered. Thenceforward Picardy was never without a strong covering force; the expense of a vigorous offensive would have been little greater. But the record of warfare on this side carries little to the credit of the French. The siege of St Omer in 1638 was a disastrous failure. The conquests of Cateau Cambrésis and Landrecies in 1637, of Hesdin in 1639, of Arras in 1640, after the Spaniards had been driven from the seas by the Dutch, and of Bapaume in 1641, are all that the French had to show for seven years of laborious campaigning in the north.

The retention of Lorraine was no doubt a point of prime importance in the Cardinal's scheme. Yet the treaty with Duke Charles in 1641 seems to show that Richelieu hardly hoped to retain it at the end of the war. And the places which were necessary to cover it, Philippsburg, Mainz, Coblenz, Trier, were allowed to fall into and remain in the

148 Elsass.-Franche Comté.-Italy.-Roussillon [1635–42

enemies' hands. In this connexion the possession of Elsass was of vital consequence. But its acquisition was due to luck and diplomacy rather than to the French arms. Bernard of Weimar and his German army were taken into French pay at an annual cost of 4,000,000 livres. His victories in the Breisgau (1638) and his capture of Breisach, later in the same year, placed Elsass and the Upper Rhine under his control. His death in the following year gave Richelieu the chance, which he promptly seized, of taking over his army and securing his conquests. Charles Lewis, the ex-Elector Palatine, while journeying through France incognito in hopes that Bernard's army would hoist his flag, was seized and imprisoned until everything had been settled according to Richelieu's desire.

Franche Comté might have seemed an easy prize; the territory was French, and formed a natural addition to French dominions. In the wars of the sixteenth century the protection of the Swiss had secured this province from attack. In this war the Swiss appear to have taken little interest in preserving its neutrality. Desultory inroads were made by French armies, and abortive sieges were undertaken; but nothing of moment was effected.

The warfare in Italy and Piedmont was perhaps the most futile and extravagant. No man in Europe knew better than Richelieu the importance of the Valtelline. Here, at the outset, the brilliant victories of Rohan secured for him the necessary control. But, unsupported and neglected, the gallant leader was forced in 1637 to surrender to the mountaineers whose freedom he was supposed to be protecting. He had perhaps shown too much talent, and no further employment was offered to him; in the following year he died. The loss of the Valtelline controlled the situation in Italy. The death of the Duke of Savoy (October 7, 1637) was a misfortune. The Duchess Christine, sister of the King of France, was with difficulty kept faithful to the French alliance; and her friendship was rather a burden than a profit. Prolonged efforts were necessary to uphold her authority against her brothers-in-law, Thomas and Maurice, who were backed by Spain. The death of the Duke of Mantua (September 24, 1637) left his dominions under the regency of his wife, who was hostile to France; and Mantua was only prevented from open secession by the presence of a French garrison in Casale. Parma left the coalition in the same year. Warfare never ceased in this region during these seven years; but, in spite of the brilliant exploits of the Count d'Harcourt in 1640, achieved with very scanty resources, all that France could boast in Italy was the imperfect maintenance of the status quo.

On the side of Spain, the conquest of Roussillon was an obvious preliminary for more serious attack. Yet this was not undertaken until it was practically forced upon France by the revolt of Catalonia in 1640. Even then, Condé was allowed to fail before Richelieu and the King took the task seriously in hand; they completed it in 1642, just before

1635-42]

The French generals under Richelieu

149

the Cardinal's death. Indirectly, the revolt of Catalonia and the revolt of Portugal in the same year were results of the war, and by weakening Spain helped the cause of France. But they were still more clearly the result of Spanish internal policy, the policy of concentrating authority without fostering national unity. Thus the imperfectly compacted kingdom yielded and split under the strain of war. On the frontier of Navarre, the siege of Fuenterrabia in 1638 was an ill-conceived and ill-executed enterprise, leading inevitably to disaster.

Thus at the Cardinal's death in 1642 France had won little compensation for seven years of exhausting warfare. Lorraine had been retained, and Elsass had been acquired. French armies had been trained in war, their tactics improved, their personnel disciplined, the military organisation developed. An effective instrument had been created for ministers who had a definite objective, a rational scheme of offensive, and above all the courage to use their resources without reserve. But Richelieu was afraid of his generals. He divided their commands, he hampered them with instructions. Any great enterprise required the presence of Richelieu and the King, which meant that no risks would be taken, and overwhelming forces would be used to achieve some ostensible success. Military operations were always controlled by political considerations; and political considerations meant the unchallenged supremacy of the Cardinal. In these circumstances it is not surprising that no great general had appeared before the Cardinal's death. Turenne and the Duke of Enghien (the great Condé) were trained in these wars; but they held no independent commands until after his death. Enghien had already prepared his way to glory by marrying the Cardinal's niece, a disparagement which he would certainly have refused had he foreseen the hour of Richelieu's death. The only sure qualification for high command under Richelieu was unquestioning submission and attachment to his person. Hence we find great armies expended to no purpose under a Condé, a Cardinal de La Valette, a Brézé, a La Meilleraye, or a Guiche. The circle of selection being limited to the Cardinal's relations, connexions, and humble adherents, these were perhaps the best that could be found. But little more could be expected of them than was actually achieved. If equal opportunities had been allowed to Rohan, or Guébriant, or even Harcourt, the issue might have been wholly different.

No detailed examination of campaigns is possible in this place; and indeed they present no features of exceptional military interest. The foregoing summary may suffice to show the policy, the objectives, and the results of the seven years of war for whose conduct the Cardinal was responsible. Half-way through the seven years (December 18, 1638) died that remarkable man, François du Tremblay, better known to history as the Capuchin Father Joseph. The fact that no difference can be observed in Richelieu's policy or action after the death of