WI: Britain declares war on Spain in 1761

During the Seven Years War, in 1761, William Pitt learned from his spies that Spain was going to join the war by mid-1762, and urged the King to declare war immediately.

In OTL, Bute blocked this, but what if he was out of the picture somehow? Would Britain have significantly benefitted from declaring war early, before Spain was prepared?

If Pitt hadn't had to resign over this, he would also have had more power to block the Peace of Paris and got his extra year of war. What would have been the impact of that?

Given that Britain's main ally was loosing the ground war (and indeed had opposition troops in its capital) in 1760. I am not sure that Britain would declare war on another Power, but rather send aid to Prussia.

IF it did happen however I can't really see anything happening in any other way except in OTL.

I would really like Pitt to have been in power to press for Britain to gain Louisiana as well as Florida. If the US colonies could expand to the Missippi (rather than the Ohio) and the Native American could have the territory west then it would massivily alter the outlook in 1770's America.

I think we get a six years war rather than a seven years war. A general peace is signed when Russia exits the war with British gains against Spain as per OTL or slightly greater. Portugal is likely not to suffer as much so it is possible Pitt could press for greater gains from Spain.

On the other hand Prussia would not be in as favourable position without the post Russia gains against Austria so maybe it would end up slightly worse off.

In 1762 Britain occupies La Habana and Manila in OTL, in a Time Line where the british gets one year more of war against Spain I think that is possible that Spain not only lost these two cities also is possible that in ATL Peace treaty they could lost permanently one of these two city colonies, I think probably Spain could not permit to lose La Habana but is possible that bargain entire Philippines in exchange to not lose La Habana.

So could be we would have a British Philippines.

Iñaki said:

In 1762 Britain occupies La Habana and Manila in OTL, in a Time Line where the british gets one year more of war against Spain I think that is possible that Spain not only lost these two cities also is possible that in ATL Peace treaty they could lost permanently one of these two city colonies, I think probably Spain could not permit to lose La Habana but is possible that bargain entire Philippines in exchange to not lose La Habana.

So could be we would have a British Philippines.

Click to expand...

Florida probably could have been taken as well.

If Britain takes territory from Spain in the Seven Years War, we may see more Spanish involvement in the ARW...

Would any other Spanish territory be at risk with an extra year of being a target? The River Plate, perhaps?

Would any other countries declare war on Britain for seeming the aggressor? Naples perhaps?

Originally posted by MadMc
Florida probably could have been taken as well.

Click to expand...

I agree, it would be a logic prey.

Originally posted by Socrates
Would any other Spanish territory be at risk with an extra year of being a target? The River Plate, perhaps?

Click to expand...

Could be, although in my opinion the british could decide first to clean the Caribean of spanish possesions (Puerto Rico, La Española, the rest of Cuba)

Socrates said:

Would any other Spanish territory be at risk with an extra year of being a target? The River Plate, perhaps?

Would any other countries declare war on Britain for seeming the aggressor? Naples perhaps?

Click to expand...

The River Plate is well down the list of places Britain would want to take off Spain. You don't start with the crumbs and work up to the steak and chips. You start by taking the steak and chips and then lick up the crumbs.

Britain learned too late it captured the Philippines in OTL and thus couldn't bargain with it.

In this situation, however, they could likely keep Florida anyways (actually capturing it than trading for it, as mentioned above), and give Spain the nasty choice of taking back either merely the Philippines or Cuba and Britain keeps the other.

Personally I suspect Spain would take Havana back in this case.

Falastur said:

The River Plate is well down the list of places Britain would want to take off Spain. You don't start with the crumbs and work up to the steak and chips. You start by taking the steak and chips and then lick up the crumbs.

Click to expand...

Can I have your top ten list of juicy steaks?

I was under the impression the River Plate had been a long term ambition for the British as its temperate climate had marked it out as a good settler colony early on.

Umbric Man said:

Britain learned too late it captured the Philippines in OTL and thus couldn't bargain with it.

In this situation, however, they could likely keep Florida anyways (actually capturing it than trading for it, as mentioned above), and give Spain the nasty choice of taking back either merely the Philippines or Cuba and Britain keeps the other.

Personally I suspect Spain would take Havana back in this case.

Click to expand...

I think that's almost a certainty. Cuba was the capital of Spanish America. I'd be interested in a British Philippines. What would that mean for the British? Earlier entry into China? War with the Dutch?

Socrates said:

War with the Dutch?

Click to expand...

Not them - the Dutch have ships, yes, but they're no match for Britain by this point in time. Britain would smash the Netherlands' naval power only twenty years later in the American Revolutionary War.

Socrates said:

Can I have your top ten list of juicy steaks?

I was under the impression the River Plate had been a long term ambition for the British as its temperate climate had marked it out as a good settler colony early on.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware so. Britain tried to take the River Plate in 1806, but that was because by then, the Spanish had lost or were about to lose most of their empire, and they wanted it for the trading supremacy. The Welsh often colonised Patagonia, but this was without the permission of the Spanish (fairly obviously) and without the support of the British government, even if they may have perhaps received tacit support if the Patagonians had requested it (which I'm not sure they ever did OTL).

I'd say that the British government was far more interested in taking the following off the Spanish (not in any particular order). Obviously not all could be taken at once, and indeed many couldn't be taken at all, hence why most of the Spanish Empire remained Spanish up until it secured its own independence:

Cuba
Santo Domingo/any other remaining Caribbean island that they had
The Philippines
Florida

On top of that, if it had come down to it, it's possible that the British would prefer Louisiana to the River Plate, when the Spanish owned it, and towards the later centuries Panama becomes a bigger prize too, when canals come into play.

Falastur said:

On top of that, if it had come down to it, it's possible that the British would prefer Louisiana to the River Plate, when the Spanish owned it, and towards the later centuries Panama becomes a bigger prize too, when canals come into play.

Click to expand...

I believe the British were planning an expedition to New Orleans by the time the Treaty of Paris rolled around. I'll have to look for the link, though...

Falastur said:

I'm not aware so. Britain tried to take the River Plate in 1806, but that was because by then, the Spanish had lost or were about to lose most of their empire, and they wanted it for the trading supremacy. The Welsh often colonised Patagonia, but this was without the permission of the Spanish (fairly obviously) and without the support of the British government, even if they may have perhaps received tacit support if the Patagonians had requested it (which I'm not sure they ever did OTL).

I'd say that the British government was far more interested in taking the following off the Spanish (not in any particular order). Obviously not all could be taken at once, and indeed many couldn't be taken at all, hence why most of the Spanish Empire remained Spanish up until it secured its own independence:

Cuba
Santo Domingo/any other remaining Caribbean island that they had
The Philippines
Florida

On top of that, if it had come down to it, it's possible that the British would prefer Louisiana to the River Plate, when the Spanish owned it, and towards the later centuries Panama becomes a bigger prize too, when canals come into play.

Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia:

The South Sea Company was granted trading concessions in South America in the time of Queen Anne, under the Treaty of Utrecht. The British had long harboured ambitions in South America, considering the estuary of the Río de la Plata as the most favourable location for a British colony.

Click to expand...

At this point in time Lousiana would have still been French - it was only given away just before the peace negotiations - but I agree, a likely target. What about Lima? Cartagena?

Umbric Man said:

I believe the British were planning an expedition to New Orleans by the time the Treaty of Paris rolled around. I'll have to look for the link, though...

Click to expand...

I believe that the British had actually already fought the Battle of New Orleans after the Peace of Ghent was signed (I think you're getting confused with the Treaty of Paris 1783, which ended the ARW, and the Treaties of Paris 1814 and 1815, which ended the Napoleonic Wars), so yes

Socrates said:

According to Wikipedia:

Click to expand...

Fair play. My knowledge of the South Sea Company extends to that they caused the South Sea Bubble and financial collapse of 1720, and ceased to exist. Still, the only attempt the British ever made to capture the River Plate was 1806-7 as far as I am aware, so it can't have topped their priorities...

Socrates said:

At this point in time Lousiana would have still been French - it was only given away just before the peace negotiations - but I agree, a likely target. What about Lima? Cartagena?

Click to expand...

Yes, true, Louisiana was. I mentioned it as a kind of "across all eras" answer where in this specific situation, yes it wouldn't have been a Spanish territory.

An attack on Lima is probably unlikely unless the Spanish really were in collapse as the Spanish could resupply it far, far easier than the British could (it's really not easy to resupply a military campaign on the Pacific coast of the Americas by sea, especially when your enemy commands the crossing points).

An attack on Cartagena is more realistic, and in 1758 the British did blockade it causing a major sea battle, and in 1741 a British force laid siege to the city and tried to capture it, but on neither occasion was the city actually captured by the British.

With Cartagena you have to bear in mind that it is the kind of location where there are a lot of diseases and marshland conditions that European (read: British) people are not used to, so while Britain may want to capture it, they don't want to have to hold it - it's the kind of location you attempt to take to force an end to a war. Also, while the British would surely love to capture it, taking the Viceroyalty of New Granada would give the British a huge land border with the Spanish empire to defend, so - it kind of depends when exactly you are talking about. At some times, it would be a tempting target, at others you have to admit that the time isn't right and just use it as a barter point. It's a bit hard to call IMO.

Falastur said:

Fair play. My knowledge of the South Sea Company extends to that they caused the South Sea Bubble and financial collapse of 1720, and ceased to exist. Still, the only attempt the British ever made to capture the River Plate was 1806-7 as far as I am aware, so it can't have topped their priorities...

Click to expand...

Was this due to logistics rather than desire? How much harder would it be for the British to attack the River Plate than another Caribbean Island? My naval expertise isn't great, so I have no idea what the extra distance meant in terms of practicality.

Falastur said:

I believe that the British had actually already fought the Battle of New Orleans after the Peace of Ghent was signed (I think you're getting confused with the Treaty of Paris 1783, which ended the ARW, and the Treaties of Paris 1814 and 1815, which ended the Napoleonic Wars), so yes

Click to expand...

Ah, no. I mean the 1763 Treaty of Paris.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...04&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101387667191

Nothing much really, aside from catching the bullion fleet from South America that Pitt had wanted to ambush. Plans were put in place to capture Cuba and the Phillippines pretty much as soon as the war was declared by Spain, which means they were already on the drawing board. So if Britain had declared early then it would have followed through those plans to the same effect.

The British declaring war on the Spanish might have enabled Britain to push claims on the whole of Louisiana instead of just east of the Mississippi but I'm not even sure that Britain wanted that much, a lot of the histories of the war are rather vague on why Britain didn't push for the whole of Louisiana (which it could have done, having defeated Spain handily as well). It wouldn't have effected the Proclamation Line and Anglo-American relations either way. The Proclamation Line is one of the most misunderstood elements of the run up to the American Revolution. It was placed there because of Pontiac's Rebellion and the large cost of putting it down. The idea was to control and organise the westward expansion under government auspicies. That way it could be done more efficiently, cheaply with less land disputes and no riling the Indians into a massive rebellion again. Once the government was satisfied that enough land had been sold and settled, then the line would shift further westwards and so on until it reached the Mississippi. The Americans misunderstood this, though it was a permanent ban on settlement beyond the line and oh so much propaganda had the whole of America believing that viewpoint, even as the British government denied it and that fallacy has continued to this day. A pretty shocking bit of PR from the British government.

So in the long run it doesn't really change much, maybe capturing Cuba earlier means the British can have a shot at Puerto Rico or Hispaniola but either way no big changes to the ultimate settlement.

Magneto said:

Nothing much really, aside from catching the bullion fleet from South America that Pitt had wanted to ambush.

Click to expand...

What would have been the effect of that in financial terms? How would it have compared to, say, a year of war expenditure?