Wars after ARW Fail

[stevep]

Could we have a general war in North America between Spain, Britain and Russia?

The Kiat

Probably very difficult as the three only have a fleeting common point in NW North America. Russia's involvement in the region is minimal and it has no real ability at the time to expand out from the base in Alaska. [Similarly the other two powers have little ability to project power into the region to challenge them significantly there].

A war between Britain and Spain is more likely, although the Spanish would really need French support else they are likely to lose much of their imperial trade. [Taking major colonies from them could well be more difficult, apart from possibly Spanish Louisiana, but not impossible].

Steve

 

[Faeelin]

The British declared war on the Dutch only after the Dutch had started acting as a co-belligerent of both France and the US. By supplying naval supplies to France and undermining the GB blockade of that country, and then refusing to back down when confronted, the Dutch chose war when they could have just as easily sat out.

I like how the Dutch provoked the war by continuing to trade freely as a sovereign state. Note that as a consequence of British action, other states signed onto the League of Armed Netherlands, which included Russia, Austria, Prussia, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilians, Holland, Denmark, and Sweden, devoted to the goal of preventing Britain from seizing contraband and attacking neutral shipping.

When you consider that France, Spain, and the Netherlands were already at war with Britain, it's pretty clear that Europe was united to stop British maritime supremacy during this period.

(And might be intersting fodder for the Napoleonic Wars. Hrm.)

 

[Antipater]

When you consider that France, Spain, and the Netherlands were already at war with Britain, it's pretty clear that Europe was united to stop British maritime supremacy during this period.

The League of Armed Neutrality was at best a paper tiger. It looks impressive on paper to have Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sweden and the mighty Kingdom of the Two Sicilies aligned on paper, until one realizes that even if each of these countries combined their navies, they would still be inferior to the Royal Navy. Not that joint action between Sweden and Russia would occur any time soon due to their mutual hostility.

Russia (Catherine II) the main catalyst behind the League just wanted to see GB brought down a peg, she was not interested in an actual conflict. If she had wanted to really hurt GB she could have suspended trade between those two countries, which would have devastated GB's economy, and starved the RN of strategic resources.

Overall the League was only partially successful. They forced the RN to be somewhat more considerate of neutral shipping, but GB's ability, and will to impose blockades in wartime was no diminished. Also the Netherlands received quite a drubbing for attempting to adhere to the principles the League espoused. Hardly an unqualified success.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

A war between France and Austria on one side and Prussia and Russia on the other has one stumbling block.

The odds are fairly even so in this situation the British clearly could play the spoiler and France has every reason to think that they will be London's most likely target.




Dr Pervez, the alliance between France and Austria, traditional enemies of long standing, was active only during the Seven Years War in Europe so reversing what was called the diplomatic revolution would have had little impact on France's ability to find new allies. Also Napoleon achieved the position you raised and yet failed to defeat or even inflict serious harm on Great Britain, Hanover being seen as a burden rather than a benefit by most Brits.

I also strongly doubt that Austria would see any coalition against Great Britain worth giving Russia a free hand one or more of her own borders. The inevitable opinion of Austria would be that this benefits France and Russia but not Austria.

 

[Faeelin]

Overall the League was only partially successful. They forced the RN to be somewhat more considerate of neutral shipping, but GB's ability, and will to impose blockades in wartime was no diminished. Also the Netherlands received quite a drubbing for attempting to adhere to the principles the League espoused. Hardly an unqualified success.

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that they were all arrayed against Britain and its habit of declaring itself arbiter of international norms at sea, and illustrates why everyone was happy to see it knocked down a peg.

And while GB might in theory have suffered no impairment when it comes to imposing blockades in wartime, I'll note that Yorktown would have come out very differently if the Royal Navy hadn't been chased off.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Thanks; so how would a bad war in Europe affect the larger British Empire? Does it weaken it enough that France, for example, can expand it's sphere?

That depends on how much the ability to maintain the Empire depended on ties to Europe. Where did they get shipbuilding materials? Where did they get food? What did they get through the Baltic? The Mediterranean? You'll have to ask someone familiar with international trade at that time.

A war between France and Austria on one side and Prussia and Russia on the other has one stumbling block.

I'm just assuming that France honors its alliance. Whether or not Russia wants to join afterwards is up to Catherine. As is the choice of sides; maybe she prefers an easier fight and joins the gang-rape of Prussia. But it would, at first, be just France and Austria vs Prussia (and Saxony).

Anyway, I would rather expect France, Britain and Russia to work together to avoid war. The French would seek to avoid a situation where they have to choose between joining a war of marginal interest to them (the real enemy is Britain) and suffering a diplomatic humiliation; the British would not want to have to finance Prussia so soon after even a victorious ARW; the Russians ended up mediating the war in OTL.

Dr Pervez, the alliance between France and Austria, traditional enemies of long standing, was active only during the Seven Years War in Europe so reversing what was called the diplomatic revolution would have had little impact on France's ability to find new allies.

Why would anyone take seriously an alliance with a power that won't keep its word? This is a matter of trust.

Also Napoleon achieved the position you raised and yet failed to defeat or even inflict serious harm on Great Britain, Hanover being seen as a burden rather than a benefit by most Brits.

I've no idea what this is meant to respond to.

I also strongly doubt that Austria would see any coalition against Great Britain worth giving Russia a free hand one or more of her own borders. The inevitable opinion of Austria would be that this benefits France and Russia but not Austria.

Whatever. Substitute Prussia for Austria or let the Russians have the Baltic. France + Russia + Spain + one of the Great Powers of Central Europe = no balance of power. Prussia was almost broken up the last time that happened.

 

[stevep]

That depends on how much the ability to maintain the Empire depended on ties to Europe. Where did they get shipbuilding materials? Where did they get food? What did they get through the Baltic? The Mediterranean? You'll have to ask someone familiar with international trade at that time.

Although there were some alternatives in N America the naval powers at the time were highly dependant on supplies from the Baltic nations. Hence one reason why it was so sensitive an issue for Britain, France and earlier the Netherlands. Also why outside powers would often intervene to prevent any single power controlling the Baltic. The splitting of the vital supplies between three often mutually hostile powers [Denmark/Norway, Sweden/Finland and Russia] and the fact they also depended heavily on such exports were countering factors. It was a potential factor for Britain to be wearily of although as Antipater pointed out it would require more determination by Catherine especially.

I'm just assuming that France honors its alliance. Whether or not Russia wants to join afterwards is up to Catherine. As is the choice of sides; maybe she prefers an easier fight and joins the gang-rape of Prussia. But it would, at first, be just France and Austria vs Prussia (and Saxony).

Possibly not Saxony on the Prussian side giving recent history, or not voluntarily However a number of the other smaller German states would probably seek to oppose either Austria getting too powerful or France extended too much toward, let alone across the Rhine - a factor that would also cause the Austrians some concerns. If such a French move occurred it would almost certain be opposed by Britain as well, both by mobilising Hanoverian forces and subsidying German allies even if not formally at war with France.

Anyway, I would rather expect France, Britain and Russia to work together to avoid war. The French would seek to avoid a situation where they have to choose between joining a war of marginal interest to them (the real enemy is Britain) and suffering a diplomatic humiliation; the British would not want to have to finance Prussia so soon after even a victorious ARW; the Russians ended up mediating the war in OTL.

Very likely.

Why would anyone take seriously an alliance with a power that won't keep its word? This is a matter of trust.

Nations have often broken their words or fudged things were they could, finding ways out of agreements. It does weaken their status with regards to future agreements but if their a powerful state then they are more likely to be needed by someone. Also if their interests changed so that they need to support the ally that would be a factor.

Whatever. Substitute Prussia for Austria or let the Russians have the Baltic. France + Russia + Spain + one of the Great Powers of Central Europe = no balance of power. Prussia was almost broken up the last time that happened.

That would be a dangerous imbalance but it's unlikely to be stable because so many interests clash.

Steve

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Possibly not Saxony on the Prussian side giving recent history, or not voluntarily

I'm just going by what happened in the OTL War of Bavarian Succession.

That would be a dangerous imbalance but it's unlikely to be stable because so many interests clash.

Not necessarily. The French and Spanish would mainly be interested in the world outside Europe (and Gibraltar and Minorca). The only trick is getting Russia and Austria/Prussia not to step on each other's toes.

Scenario 1: Russia goes to war with Turkey; Prussia keeps Austria distracted with an invasion of Bohemia; France and Spain send some forces to Tuscany and Milan to stretch Austrian defenses.

Scenario 2: Russia attacks the Danish Straits; Austria keeps Prussia distracted with an invasion of Silesia; France sends some forces to Cleves and Russia to East Prussia to stretch Prussian defenses.

Or something like that. The idea is that Britain can't rely on the continental powers cancelling each other out. The 7YW proved that; the Prussians barely made it out, the Dutch refused to join in and the Portuguese stayed on the defensive; everybody else was an enemy of Britain.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

And the British ended the war stronger and wealthier than they started while Prussia managed to not only survive but avoid any losses against a much more powerful coalition.

Nor is it likely that the coalition against Prussia would have lasted for long, especially in case of success, as Austria would likely have become extremely lonely for any counterweight to Russia and France might have seen a risk of the next war leaving only one major power on the continent to their east.

 

[Faeelin]

And the British ended the war stronger and wealthier than they started while Prussia managed to not only survive but avoid any losses against a much more powerful coalition.
.

And we know how well it did during the Napoleonic Wars, right?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

And the British ended the war stronger and wealthier than they started while Prussia managed to not only survive but avoid any losses against a much more powerful coalition.

The British won the war outside Europe, remember? How many troops will they spare to invade Spanish America now that they have to keep the 13 Colonies from rebelling again? What colonial militia will they recruit to send to New Orleans? And you probably know what Prussia's survival consisted of, I'm sure there's been a billion TLs about it by now.

Nor is it likely that the coalition against Prussia would have lasted for long, especially in case of success, as Austria would likely have become extremely lonely for any counterweight to Russia and France might have seen a risk of the next war leaving only one major power on the continent to their east.

The role of Austria/Prussia is to help take out Britain's ally in Central Europe (Prussia/Austria). Once that's done they'll find themselves in a better position to deal with any Russian steamroller which doesn't exist yet. As for the French, a distant threat of Russia one day becoming their worst adversary is worth defeating the current worst adversary.