American Revolutionary War if George II/III had lost Hanover in 7 Years War

Background:

1. Britain won Canada in 7 Years War from France.

2. But Prussia and Hanover fell, both dismembered among the victorious powers. Hanover was lost totally and Prussia lost Silesia, the Rheinish provinces, East Prussia, parts of Pomerania, etc. Prussia was forced to pay indemnities and keep their army small.

3. Their allies, Hesse, Lippe and Brunsiwich, were forced to pay indemnities for supporting "Frederick the Mad" and forbidden from leasing their armies (these little states' prime sourcing of foreign exchange) without the express approval of France AND Austria for a period of 30 Years.

Assume that George II couldn't get Hanover back by trade after the war or George III wouldn't. I think the British public may view this as the best of both worlds. Win America and lose Hanover.

P0D:
1. The American Revolution continues as in OTL.

2. In OTL 1776, a force of 30,000 Britons and Germans showed up and spent the year kicking the Continental Army's ass. The majority of this reinforcement force was German. Note that many thousands of German mercenaries and Hanoverians were also hired to man other areas of Britain's domains, thus freeing up Britons to fight that otherwise could not (some went to the Channel Islands, Ireland, the West Indies, India, Gibraltar, Minorca). Britain did find a few more thousand from other German states but they were of poor quality.

3. With Hanover gone (they lent 5,000 at least to Britain) and Brunswick/Hesse/Lippe unable to sent reinforcements (they rented 30,000 at least, 20,000 in 1776), in 1776 Britain could probably only dispatch closer to 10,000 men to America to reinforce William Howe's 10,000 or so already there (the remnants of the Boston force had sailed to Halifax for the winter). With only 20,000 men total from Quebec to Florida, how would 1776 have played out?

Would Britain send any reinforcements (OTL was about 10,000 under Guy Carleton) to Quebec, thus keeping Quebec safe throughout the end of the War or would they risk Quebec and concentrate on a "knock-out blow" in New York?

Would Howe dispatch several thousand men under Clinton in a failed attack on Charleston? Would the small garrisons in Florida been viable?

Would less of an ass-kicking at the hands of a weakened British Army in 1776 bring France and/or Spain into the fight a year early?

This was an unpopular war in Britain, volunteers hard to come by for most of the war. Would Britain take more..FIRM...measures to draft soldiers, at the possible expense of British public ill-will?

Would the role of Loyalists (arguably ignored much of the war) be greater?

Feel free to expand. This is a key subcomponent of one of my timelines and I'd like to hear opinions on feasibility.

Thanks.

All, go ahead and tell me if I tend to drone on too long with my initial threads (above).

Thing is, many of my questions are so esoteric that I feel I need to go into alot of detail.

My own thought is that this is an unmitigated defeat for Britain; the continent is now dominated by powers that are hostile to Britain.

Faeelin said:

My own thought is that this is an unmitigated defeat for Britain; the continent is now dominated by powers that are hostile to Britain.

Click to expand...

Britain didn't have any allies at this point in our timeline, so not sure how much difference it makes. That was why the Revolutionary War was so harmful to them. In this scenario, a Russian-British alliance might even be more likely.

There is one additional issue, which is this complaint in the Declaration of Independence:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

That's one inflammatory issue taken off the table. Although it probably doesn't make too much difference. If the Revolution goes ahead, Britain is either resorts to conscription or is pretty screwed. I think they probably adopt a defensive position with respect to Canada early if they can't implement a draft. I still find it struggling that those minor German states could provide 30,000 men.

I'm also not sure the Revolution goes ahead on schedule. George III's humbling in the Seven Years' War might make him a less belligerent man in terms of interfering politically. That could have ramifications.

Socrates said:

Britain didn't have any allies at this point in our timeline, so not sure how much difference it makes. That was why the Revolutionary War was so harmful to them. In this scenario, a Russian-British alliance might even be more likely.

There is one additional issue, which is this complaint in the Declaration of Independence:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

That's one inflammatory issue taken off the table. Although it probably doesn't make too much difference. If the Revolution goes ahead, Britain is either resorts to conscription or is pretty screwed. I think they probably adopt a defensive position with respect to Canada early if they can't implement a draft. I still find it struggling that those minor German states could provide 30,000 men.

Germans mqde

I'm also not sure the Revolution goes ahead on schedule. George III's humbling in the Seven Years' War might make him a less belligerent man in terms of interfering politically. That could have ramifications.

Click to expand...

germans made up near the majority of British forces until 1777.

I'm not sure Britain would consider losing Hanover a defeat as parliament loathed having to protect it, right or wrong, that was the theme of the day.

Faeelin said:

My own thought is that this is an unmitigated defeat for Britain; the continent is now dominated by powers that are hostile to Britain.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Britain would care as they generally wanted to keep out of Europe.

However, they might regret this long term, as this reduces their ability to obtain Germany mercenaries leased by the Regiment and they lose their foothold.

I do't think this necessarily means that all of Europe was hostile to Britain long term. France would always be an enemy but Austria and Russia were not by nature and their alliance with France might end the moment the 7 Years War ended.

Great Britain would have less of a say in continental Europe, no doubt.

Alt History Buff said:

I'm not sure if Britain would care as they generally wanted to keep out of Europe.

Click to expand...

British policy was based on preventing any power from dominating the low countries and Germany. Now who will oppose the Bourbons and Austria from rearranging the continent as they see fit?

Austria might ditch France, but why? Where will they clash? "We want the Low Countries and will give you Bavaria instead."

"Deal!"

Socrates said:

Britain didn't have any allies at this point in our timeline, so not sure how much difference it makes. That was why the Revolutionary War was so harmful to them. In this scenario, a Russian-British alliance might even be more likely.

Click to expand...

Austria is more likely to be an ally to Britain.

British policy was based on preventing any power from dominating the low countries and Germany. Now who will oppose the Bourbons and Austria from rearranging the continent as they see fit?

Austria might ditch France, but why? Where will they clash? "We want the Low Countries and will give you Bavaria instead."

"Deal!"

Click to expand...

And what prevents hostilities from resuming afterwards?

France is still a treat to Germany (the Rhineland) than Britain. Nations have no friends.

No, Austria no longer trusted Britain after she proved to be an unreliable ally in the previous war. Plus Austria is united with France via marriage and has a poor relationship with Russia.

Socrates said:

No, Austria no longer trusted Britain after she proved to be an unreliable ally in the previous war. Plus Austria is united with France via marriage and has a poor relationship with Russia.

Click to expand...

Poor relations with Russia how? It's isn't the 1900s, relations with Russia were cold, but not hostile, the first conflict between Austria and Russia was the Napoleonic Russian campaign.

And marriage really doesn't mean much, France still a treath.

Austria frequently clashed, (though seldom to the point of war), over Russian designs for Poland and the Ottoman.

Alt History Buff said:

Austria frequently clashed, (though seldom to the point of war), over Russian designs for Poland and the Ottoman.

Click to expand...

Which will be accentuated now that Prussia is out the window. The most pressing expansionist threat to Austria is now Russia.

Bumping.

We are probably digressing.

What would the effects be on Great Britain if they did not have 20,000 German mercenaries available for America in 1776 and more available for the rest of their empire that allowed more British soldiers to go to America?

How would Long Island go?

Would they have sent expeditions to South Carolina and Quebec at all?

Would France get itchy to join in?

Thanks.

they still win long island. no quebec expedition. the british try a loyalist based "enclave strategy of holding nyc the loer hudson and northeast new jersey. france jumps in. france will probably focuss on the seaboard and cairribean but will have a st lawrence option. if british holdings around nyc are stable the british may try a second enclave based on georgia.

Hi. I don't know much about the American Revolution, but could Britain not having those German reinforcements make them open to negotiating a deal that keeps the colonies as part of the empire?

BigDestiny said:

Hi. I don't know much about the American Revolution, but could Britain not having those German reinforcements make them open to negotiating a deal that keeps the colonies as part of the empire?

Click to expand...

Possibly, though most Britain's would think in 1776 that 20,000 would be overkill to defeat colonists.

Faeelin said:

British policy was based on preventing any power from dominating the low countries and Germany. Now who will oppose the Bourbons and Austria from rearranging the continent as they see fit?

Click to expand...

Right, which is why many diplomats at the time, and historians of the balance of power school would think it a disaster.

This would be a fantastic international relations theory experiment.

Basically, if Britain is excluded involuntarily from the continental balance of power for a generation or two, we could look back and see if Britain is less powerful, secure and prosperous than before.

If Britain becomes wealthy, remains respected and remains the number one colonial/naval power by 1830, it will vindicate the Tory, insular approach and devalue the balance of power continental approaches.

The Tories can argue either way that:

A) Others on the continent will do the necessary balancing and distracting of each other (if the French coalition with Austria falls apart), or

B) Having a French-led alliance dominate Europe turns out to not cramp Britain’s style much.


If, on the other hand, Britain loses trade or naval advantages, faces colonial setbacks beyond American independence or has to fight or endure foreign invasions between 1776 and 1830 and finds it a long period of depression, well then that will be attiributed to a British failure to maintain a sufficiently strong continental diplomacy and strategy.

Most historians will locate the “seeds of disaster” in Britain’s failure to keep Austria as an ally at the conclusion of the war of Austrian Succession.

Monter said:

And marriage really doesn't mean much, France still a treath.

Click to expand...

Really, continental politics could go any which way-

Most dangerous course of events for Britain would be if the Franco-Austrian-Russian alliance stays together for decades, its members don’t war on each other, they possibly all reach a deal to partition the Ottoman Empire, they promote their own industries and restrict British trade, and France uses its strong position to take over the southern Netherlands, overawe the Dutch Republic, build up its navy and start peeling back British colonies around the world.

Is that most likely?
Probably not –

Of the three, any of France, Austria or Russia will probably fall out with the others and have a war with them over the next half century.

Britain’s losses may be limited to just conceding American independence.

As I said earlier in the post, it becomes quite a testing ground for international relations theory.

Is an alliance of two or three sovereign powers dominating Europe as dangerous as a Napoleonic or Nazi dominating Europe. Maybe the multi-headed hegemony has better chances to endure, which can be frightening to Britain, but they may be less dangerous than a unipolar continent which could perhaps more easily marshal its resources towards the common end of smashing Britain or other enemies outside the continent.

I think 2 kinds of british colonies must be distinguished : the settlement colonies and the classic exploitation/control colonies.

Considering the demographic dynamics and advance, by that time nobody but the settlers themselves could oust Britain out of the core of the north american east coast, except for Territories north fringe of those colonies (Maine, Vermont, and what became British Canada).

It was not a matter of sea power but of mere demography. Just consider Portugal with Brazil or Spain with its continental american colonies because they had a critical mass of settler population nobody could challenge. Time, having been the first and only one to reach this critical mass on these territories ensured that those territories would remain culturally mainly creole portuguese, creole spanish, ... etc.

The other classic exploitation/control colonies could be lost to a rival power.

This is an interesting hypothetical, but I'd have to imagine that the British monarch would get back Hanover in return for the overseas colonies of France it took in the 1763 negotiations.