Wars after ARW Fail

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Here's the idea -- PoD is UK win at Saratoga, so the Americans lose without other European powers getting involved. However, the geopolitical tensions that allowed France Spain, and even the Netherlands -- as well as, to a lesser extent, Russia, Prussia, and the HRE -- to gang up on Britain in OTL are still there, a situation Lord North and King George are do not yet fully recognize.

My question: How do future wars among the great powers play out?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
A giant POD. With the ARW, it is quite possible that there is no French Revolution. At the very least, it would be a very different revolution. Since the next quarter century was the story of radical France against everybody else, taking the ARW out of the equation would completely rearrange European history. Not only that, but it was the actions of Revolutionary/Napoleonic France that sparked German nationalism into high gear, and we might well avoid German unification in such a TL.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Good points -- but to get back to the OP...

Without the ARW, it is quite possible that there is no French Revolution. At the very least, it would be a very different revolution. Since the next quarter century was the story of radical France against everybody else...
Click to expand...

If so, this actually supports what I was getting at -- without all Europe ganging up on France, and not having yet had the opportunity to gang up on Britain, I'm thinking a major war with Britain vs everybody else is looking all the more inevitable...
 
Cuāuhtemōc

Cuāuhtemōc

Banned
The French Revolution I don't believe is butterflied away. The problems that caused it are still there and it's only going to be pushed back.

And Britain is going to have to give the colonies something to keep them in their sphere.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
The French Revolution I don't believe is butterflied away. The problems that caused it are still there and it's only going to be pushed back.
Click to expand...

Even so, I'm not convinced the rest of Europe will be more concerned by an unstable France than the prospect of an increasingly arrogant British hyper-power.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
John Fredrick Parker said:
No, I am not; why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Because Britain in 1775 was far from being a hyperpower, the colonies only consisted of about 3 million settlers and ate up some resources that would probably keep India from falling as fast and as entirely in Britain's orbit. The family compact + the netherlands would probably be very much enough to keep Britain contained as well.

However, the fears of Britain doing this were very much real and in many ways I'm not so sure it would be so much a case of "not wanting british hyperpower" as "not liking upstarts" :p - the French had been gearing up for ths for a good decade at that point.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
However, the fears of Britain doing this were very much real and in many ways I'm not so sure it would be so much a case of "not wanting british hyperpower" as "not liking upstarts" - :p - the French had been gearing up for ths for a good decade at that point.
Click to expand...

I think you're actually right; maybe "hyper-power" isn't really the term I'm looking for, but I was thinking more of British diplomatic and strategic arrogance -- not even having ambassadors in a number of key countries, etc -- than of real power.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
John Fredrick Parker said:
I think you're actually right; maybe "hyper-power" isn't really the term I'm looking for, but I was thinking more of British diplomatic and strategic arrogance -- not even having ambassadors in a number of key countries, etc -- than of real power.
Click to expand...

On diplomatic arrogance; a lot of countries were also outraged by the fact that Britain tended to treat ambassadors by the laws of the land, which basically meant a lot of things they did as part of their job were liable to be treated as treason; one example I can think off the top of my head is a Portuguese ambassador who was executed under Pitt's orders. But yeah, basically.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Sorry, just want to clarify something:

the colonies only consisted of about 3 million settlers and ate up some resources that would probably keep India from falling as fast and as entirely in Britain's orbit. The family compact + the netherlands would probably be very much enough to keep Britain contained as well
Click to expand...

So IIUYC, if the ARW fails, India would likely fall from British influence, and issues in Canada and with the Netherlands would keep the UK busy?

EDIT: Oops, Pervez set me straight on one of those terms :eek:
 
Last edited:

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
John Fredrick Parker said:
Sorry, just want to clarify something:



So IIUYC, if the ARW fails, India would likely fall from British influence, and issues in Canada and with the Netherlands would keep the UK busy?
Click to expand...

By the Family Compact he means the Pacte de Famille, the Franco-Spanish dynastical alliance. Anyway, the stadtholder was pro-British and the Netherlands were only pushed into the war by British arrogance (that and a declaration of war). Britain really deserved to lose that war.
 

Snake Featherston

Banned
Presuming abolition emerges in the UK as per OTL you get a second revolt in North America that blends with the US Civil War, which is one war that would be coming down the pike. The things that led to the French Revolution are still going to happen. The question is if it happens to the king after Louis XVI, say, whether or not he'd parlay it into power far beyond that of Louis XIV.

Obviously the Indian Wars are still going to continue. One question is what happens to territories like Spanish Florida and if Louisiana stays Spanish for longer how soon it would be until British North America starts wanting control of New Orleans, which would become a geopolitical necessity due to sheer geography.

Another question is what happens to the slaves freed in the ARW and if Britain retains slavery in the 13 Colonies after the fact. I can't see butterflies affecting the rise of Russia or the lead-in to Pugachev's Rebellion very much.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
Presuming abolition emerges in the UK as per OTL you get a second revolt in North America that blends with the US Civil War, which is one war that would be coming down the pike... Another question is what happens to the slaves freed in the ARW and if Britain retains slavery in the 13 Colonies after the fact.
Click to expand...

There's actually another thread on that; suffice to say here, I don't agree ;)

The things that led to the French Revolution are still going to happen. The question is if it happens to the king after Louis XVI, say, whether or not he'd parlay it into power far beyond that of Louis XIV.
Click to expand...

Well, assuming he lives as long as his predecessor, holding the revolution after his reign means no troubles until the 1810's :rolleyes:

Obviously the Indian Wars are still going to continue. One question is what happens to territories like Spanish Florida and if Louisiana stays Spanish for longer how soon it would be until British North America starts wanting control of New Orleans, which would become a geopolitical necessity due to sheer geography.
Click to expand...

Actually, prior to the ARW, Florida was British; I'd imagine it stays British at least until the next major war, which may well involve New Orleans...

EDIT: Oops, forgot the link :eek:
 
Last edited:

elder.wyrm

Banned
archaeogeek said:
Because Britain in 1775 was far from being a hyperpower, the colonies only consisted of about 3 million settlers and ate up some resources that would probably keep India from falling as fast and as entirely in Britain's orbit. The family compact + the netherlands would probably be very much enough to keep Britain contained as well.
Click to expand...

'Only' 3 million settlers, in a time, when England itself had 'only' 9 million people.

3 million settlers on the Eastern Seaboard was the greatest concentration of Europeans outside of Europe itself.

What resources does America suck up that would cause India to fall, anyway?
 

Grimm Reaper

Actually it was 2.5 million in the colonies including the slaves and 10 million in England, also I don't see what resources the extremely modest British troop commitment to North America(prior to 1775) took out of India.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
elder.wyrm said:
'Only' 3 million settlers, in a time, when England itself had 'only' 9 million people.

3 million settlers on the Eastern Seaboard was the greatest concentration of Europeans outside of Europe itself.

What resources does America suck up that would cause India to fall, anyway?
Click to expand...

India is not British in 1776. Bengal is barely taken and the Napoleonic wars have yet to happen to completely destroy the french and dutch spheres in India. So basically Circars, Bengal, Bombay and a few bits. Probably Malabar too.
Also, Mexico had 5 million inhabitants, Brazil almost as much as the eastern seaboard on its eastern seaboard, and Peru-Nueva-Granada-Rio de la Plata another 5 millions. Even when accounting Mestizos I'd say there were quite enough europeans elsewhere in the rest of the Americas.

Also the ARW just failed, this means there will need to be garrisons. But admittedly it's only temporary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top