What if the American Revolution failed? For a specific cause, what if Louis XVI refused to provide the aid that ended up being instrumental in the American victory? Would the British Empire last even longer, controlling most of the world? Would France still be an absolute monarchy? What else would change?
WI the American Revolution failed?
- Thread starter Porygon3.14
- Start date
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I've hosted a few threads on various aspects of this question, so I can offer some points:
One of the only things people here really agree on is that the French Revolution is still going to happen regardless, though most would stipulate it's likely to come later and could even be less extreme. AAR, no the absolute monarchy is not surviving.
It's generally agreed that another big European War is on the horizon, and many agree with me that Britain's years of diplomatic isolation and hubris are likely to be worse for them than OTL. Given this, I can certainly see Britain's power outside North America being curbed.
I'd also add that, OTL, abolitionism both in the newborn US and in Britain got an enormous boost from this war, and that IMO a failed ARW would most likely butterfly into an extended Atlantic slave trade. Though I should note, this has been contested.
Any other questions?
One of the only things people here really agree on is that the French Revolution is still going to happen regardless, though most would stipulate it's likely to come later and could even be less extreme. AAR, no the absolute monarchy is not surviving.
It's generally agreed that another big European War is on the horizon, and many agree with me that Britain's years of diplomatic isolation and hubris are likely to be worse for them than OTL. Given this, I can certainly see Britain's power outside North America being curbed.
I'd also add that, OTL, abolitionism both in the newborn US and in Britain got an enormous boost from this war, and that IMO a failed ARW would most likely butterfly into an extended Atlantic slave trade. Though I should note, this has been contested.
Any other questions?
The American Revolution was a model for the French one. If it fails there will be profound effects in France and all of Europe. There is likely to still be a revolt in 1789 as all the causes are still in place; but with no republic in America to draw inspiration from it may be very different.
No Tennis Court Oath.
No Declaration of the Rights of Man.
No insistence on tearing down the monarchy completely.
Instead we might see the estates general aiming at reforming the monarchy on the British model. Louis the XVI is forced to abdicate for some other more liberal King. France is stripped of its absolutism with the nobility and the Estates General. Europe is shocked but is not horrified. England especially looks on at the more liberal French monarchy with approval.
With this the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, and the spread of democratic ideas through Europe disappear. The needs of the peasant class and the poor have not been addressed. This may lead to trouble in the future but not in the eighteenth century.
In America once all the rebel leaders have been executed the British would definitely have modified their rule there and granted the colonists limited autonomy. Perhaps even an early Dominion status. The British would have ruled over Canada and the eastern half of North America.
With no United States and no Manifest Destiny expansion into the interior, never mind to the Pacific, would have been greatly slowed. The Indian tribes would have prospered, Mexico would have held onto Texas, California, and its other possessions. Russian Alaska would also be a fixture of this new world.
No Tennis Court Oath.
No Declaration of the Rights of Man.
No insistence on tearing down the monarchy completely.
Instead we might see the estates general aiming at reforming the monarchy on the British model. Louis the XVI is forced to abdicate for some other more liberal King. France is stripped of its absolutism with the nobility and the Estates General. Europe is shocked but is not horrified. England especially looks on at the more liberal French monarchy with approval.
With this the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, and the spread of democratic ideas through Europe disappear. The needs of the peasant class and the poor have not been addressed. This may lead to trouble in the future but not in the eighteenth century.
In America once all the rebel leaders have been executed the British would definitely have modified their rule there and granted the colonists limited autonomy. Perhaps even an early Dominion status. The British would have ruled over Canada and the eastern half of North America.
With no United States and no Manifest Destiny expansion into the interior, never mind to the Pacific, would have been greatly slowed. The Indian tribes would have prospered, Mexico would have held onto Texas, California, and its other possessions. Russian Alaska would also be a fixture of this new world.
Last edited:
I don't really agree. If the American Revolution fails because France doesn't come in, then France doesn't run up a bunch of debt and its finances aren't in such a parlous state. Result, IMHO, is likely no French Revolution.
This doesn't even get into the influence of returning French veterans, which played a big part in the rural unrest--but its not as decisive a factor as the debt.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
That's the reason for the delay -- but UIAM, France's financial woes significantly predate the ARW, which was more of an exacerbator...
Not so fast. American settlement was driven by settlers, not by initiatives from the center. Britain probably can't restrain the settlers but won't want to anyway: Britain will want to avoid a second revolt, Britain now can tax the American dominions so in the long run it benefits economically from expansion, and creating more American dominions to play off against each other cements the UK's overlordship.
Manifest Destiny was originally an Anglo-American ideology that the USA inherited.
OTL American expansion is now backed by British arms. The result is likely more, not less, American expansionism. Mexico will be signing away territory right and left.
The only countervailing factor would be if the UK and the American dominions continue to squander their strength in repeated revolts.
Well, I don't remember where I read this now, but last time I looked at it, just prior to the Revolution the crown was running a deficit of around 33%, but half of their expenditures were on debt service and most of the debt was incurred because of the ARW. So if you eliminated the ARW debt, you also comfortably eliminated the deficit. That's what I recall, though I could easily be wrong.
Kosta
Banned
There really is no need to be pedantic, is there?
And I do believe, although I could never swear to it, that someone around here did some research on France's pre-Revolution debts and came to the conclusion that there'd still be economic problems even without an American Revolution. Where I read this, I don't remember; the post would be months old, if not a year old.
Kosta
Banned
Oh come on, really? You obviously know what king he was talking because you know what era he's talking about. If I said "King George II was king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the American Revolution", how many people would complain that I just said "George II" and "Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? There's a fine line between correcting someone and being a dick, you know.
Speaking as a nitpicker...I'd say there are two things.
1) It kind of does matter. (as David said).
2) More importantly, the differences between Louis XIV and Louis XVI are pretty extreme. And while I'm fine with assuming that's a slip of the typing fingers, its important to make sure one's mind is focused on the right Louis and that it is just the typing fingers. Louis XVI was not the kind of man or king Louis XIV was.
Okay, so #2 is a rationalization for being a nitpicker, but it is still part of what makes it worth doing, in my opinion.
Re: the French Revolution, you would probably still see it happen, as JFP said, but I would disagree that it would necessarily be less extreme. It might actually be more extreme, if that were possible, without the relatively moderating influence of the American example, showing that a democratic republic could work. You might see the philosophes marginalized and a more authoritarian, perhaps even totalitarian, government move in, shades of Russia 1917.
We even won't see Robespierre TTL - he was a relative moderate, even.
I wasn't really intending to be, though in retrospect I could see why one would come to that conclusion. It wouldn't be the first time I have been inadvertently insensitive.
I've been pondering this myself recently. Could you link me to threads discussing it?
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
In a failed American Revolution scenario, for it to be serious, you have to answer 1) What becomes of the revolutionaries? Are the English generous in surrender, or harsh? 2) The slavery question: Does England continue on its course towards abolution, or does the the presence of defeated american mean that England opposes abolition more vigoriously? 3) As a derivative of the slavery question, does England embrace slavery, and thus bind the southern states to it in the long run, or does it oppose it, while allowing off-shore manufacturing the north to grow more powerful?
There is no British wins the AR scenariou, I can imagine, where Britain does not soon become emroiled in the great Slaver Debate.
There is no British wins the AR scenariou, I can imagine, where Britain does not soon become emroiled in the great Slaver Debate.