WI:France does not support the American War of Independence
- Thread starter Eivind
- Start date
Lord Protector
Banned
The revolutionaries have a harder time,they might even lose.
In france i dont think it would affect the revolution,the french problems were domestic in nature and didnt require a foreign example to reach breaking point.
France having more money could put off any reform for a time longer but there is no guaranty they wouldnt be forced to fight bitain over some other issue.
In france i dont think it would affect the revolution,the french problems were domestic in nature and didnt require a foreign example to reach breaking point.
France having more money could put off any reform for a time longer but there is no guaranty they wouldnt be forced to fight bitain over some other issue.
The Rebels lose. As soon as France joined the war it switched from being a colonial struggle to a existential that saw finally Britain pitted against Western Europe. Without French intervention Britain can afford to send the 100,000 soldier's who in OTL were defending Southern England, fighting in the Caribbean and fighting the French in India to the 13 Colonies. Additionally with Britain being stronger it will be much better able to support and defend the Loyalists and also convince the fence sitters. who in OTL switched to the Rebel side to support the Crown.
If France stays out because of greater American losses earlier in the war (say, because Washington's army is trapped and destroyed in Brooklyn in the summer of 1776), I think the Continentals would have a hard time winning.
I wasn´t so much thinking about the foreign example than how the economic costs of supporting the American war was a huge burden on the French economy. I believe this was more important in causing the revolution than the American Revolutionary War as an example for a revolution in France.
Besides, the French revolution was more of a revolution than the "American Revolution" which was more a war of independence than a revolution, at least if by "revolution" one means a social revolution.
The American Revolutionaries still could have won, but it would be very hard. They would still need the supplies the French provided, and some of that could be made up domestically, but a foreign patron would have to pick up the slack. Finding support from other nations could have happened, but French leadership in declaring war on Britain made the Spanish and the Dutch much more likely to join in the tussle. I believe would definitely have gone on for longer and may have petered out into some kind of settlement, possibly including independence.
As for the French Revolution, it would be delayed but not butterflied away. Financing the ARW was indeed like shooting a hole in the hole of a foundering ship, but the ship of the monarchy's purse was still on the way to sinking. Any other European conflict that may have arisen in the butterflies could replace the ARW as the last push necessary to spark the calling of the Estates General.
As for the French Revolution, it would be delayed but not butterflied away. Financing the ARW was indeed like shooting a hole in the hole of a foundering ship, but the ship of the monarchy's purse was still on the way to sinking. Any other European conflict that may have arisen in the butterflies could replace the ARW as the last push necessary to spark the calling of the Estates General.
Gotta disagree completely here. Without French support the revolution was doomed to fail. We Americans simply lacked the necessary supplies (guns, ammo, uniforms, ships and above all MONEY) to successfully fight the most powerful nation on earth at that time. No France means no Spain and the Dutch were never in a position to help much. Once Britain is able to focus all of their forces on the rebels, they will eventually win.
As for the French revolution, it was by no means a done deal, even up to the late 1780s. Yes French finances were in bad shape when Louis XVI ascended the throne in 1774, but they were also bad at Louis XV's accession in 1715. What France needed was time to rebuild its economy. The Revolutionary war was basically like shooting the French economy in the head and then turning off life support. If France retained its money for domestic issues instead of wild spending to punch Britain in the nose things would have been different.
Look at Europe during the 1770s and 1780s. The continent was mostly at peace and it never looked as though a continental wide war was going to break out. Without intervention in the Revolutionary war, chances are Europe would remain more or less at peace for the next few decades, like it was after the Spanish succession and Quadruple Alliance wars. A good 20-30 years of nominal peace would have done wonders for France's economy and finances.
The bold is big, though. The British proved again and again that they had an incredibly poor understanding of the nature of the rebellion and could not adequately bring their forces to bear in a way to deal with it. Their leadership was lacking and their strategy usually counterproductive toward ending the conflict. Could they have beaten the American army in a direct action in New York or New Jersey in 1777? Easily. Could the leadership get their act together and cooperate enough to make it happen? I'm not sure. The populace grew increasingly hostile to the British with time, and I can imagine the whole thing turning into a static guerilla conflict with no clear victor that, ultimate, leads to the benefit of the Americans by simple attrition.
French ministers tried again and again throughout the century to get their financial house in order and failed every time. The Bourbons and their ministers never were very good at using their cash to right the ship. No ARW wouldn't provide that end to life support, but the underlying issues would remain. You'd still have the archaic tax system and lavish spending by the monarch and the agricultural disasters of the late 1780s, among many others. The seeds of revolution still were there.
There still remained spots of tension in the European landscape. France and Prussia nearly went to war over the Dutch in the 1780s, if memory serves me properly. The British and French still had frosty relations and many far-flung colonies that could spark conflict between them after the Seven Years' War. Hell, perhaps Poland or something in Italy could have upset the balance of things. A bad war for the French isn't impossible to imagine.
unprincipled peter
Donor
taking the French out of the AR completely changes the complexion of the war. British are able to devote more attention to the struggle, has complete command of the seas. The Patriots don't have that HUGE morale boost of being joined by a major power, then two, then three, and the rest of the world snubbing Britain. After the French joined, the Patriots game plan changed to avoiding defeats and spending as much foreign gold as they can get their hands on. the French joined envisioning a quick victory, but the Patriots didn't go for a knockout blow, choosing just to run around the ring, bobbing and weaving while France went broke.
IMO, the continental army diminishes greatly and the war becomes one of harrassment. meanwhile, the loyalists get a huge morale boost, and the tide turns. dunno if the Patriots have the staying power to go the 10 - 15 years it's going to take to wear down the Brits.
France has a lot more ka-ching in the bank. AR spending and getting nothing for it is almost always listed as one of the prime factors in the french revolution. you can't simply take that factor out and still automatically assume the French revolution goes as OTL
IMO, the continental army diminishes greatly and the war becomes one of harrassment. meanwhile, the loyalists get a huge morale boost, and the tide turns. dunno if the Patriots have the staying power to go the 10 - 15 years it's going to take to wear down the Brits.
France has a lot more ka-ching in the bank. AR spending and getting nothing for it is almost always listed as one of the prime factors in the french revolution. you can't simply take that factor out and still automatically assume the French revolution goes as OTL
I don't know, sure it cost a lot but they could have potentially headed off the later revolution if they had only made a few sensible decisions. In return they helped deprive a major rival of what was at that time one of their main overseas endeavours. Just consider what France might have faced if Britain had somehow been able to muddle through to some sort of accommodation - rather than an economic and naval giant if the American colonies had remained as loyal as Canada did it offers the prospect of a large manpower pool as to make Britain a major land power as well. Assuming that relations with Spain, and therefore linked westward expansions, go pretty much as in our timeline a British Empire that also includes all of North America north of the Mexico is going to be scary.
Another war between France and Britain was inevitable, I think. Perhaps the War of the Bavarian Succession could have been a bigger thing? Although if there was no war, they might last longer before bankruptcy.
France might be able to get another decade of finances before going bankrupt, but I'm not sure how much that would affect things. The direction of travel was clear and they called the Estates General because they had run out of other reform options. I don't think a mildly healthier stock of debt would mean they would call the Estates General any later. What else would they have done in 1789? Gone back to the parlements or the Assembly of Notables again?
I think the bigger issue is how ARW victory emboldened the French populace. If a bunch of colonials could take on the British and win from a grassroots movement, why couldn't they take on the French monarchy and win?
France might be able to get another decade of finances before going bankrupt, but I'm not sure how much that would affect things. The direction of travel was clear and they called the Estates General because they had run out of other reform options. I don't think a mildly healthier stock of debt would mean they would call the Estates General any later. What else would they have done in 1789? Gone back to the parlements or the Assembly of Notables again?
I think the bigger issue is how ARW victory emboldened the French populace. If a bunch of colonials could take on the British and win from a grassroots movement, why couldn't they take on the French monarchy and win?
The general populace wasn't politicised until Calonne leaked details of the Assembly of Notables meeting to the general populace in an attempt to put pressure on the nobles.
I worded it badly. I should have said the French educated public. If you read the pre-ARW literature, they generally all agree that reform would need to happen from an enlightened monarch giving away arbitrary rule. Afterwards, the view that change from outside could occur. A similar shift happened in the Netherlands.
I think one thing a lot of people forget when talking about how Britain would be able to dedicate their attention to the Rebellion if France didn't intervene and distract Britain is, quite simply; France can distract Britain simply by Existing.
So long as there is an Army and Navy in Europe that could conceivably threaten the Home Isles, and France and Spain provide such a threat, Britain will have to keep forces in Europe to counter that threat.
I'm not saying they won't be able to devote more attention to the rebellion, but they can't ship a massive amount of soldiers over or France will smell blood in the water and attack even if they don't care about the Rebellion.
Really, the only way you can give Britain the ability to dedicate their undivided attention to the Rebellion is if either A: France and Britain are allied, or B: France is distracted by something so important that they ignore Britain, but not so important that they cannot be ignored by Britain.
I don't think you can really get either without a PoD well before the American Revolution.
So long as there is an Army and Navy in Europe that could conceivably threaten the Home Isles, and France and Spain provide such a threat, Britain will have to keep forces in Europe to counter that threat.
I'm not saying they won't be able to devote more attention to the rebellion, but they can't ship a massive amount of soldiers over or France will smell blood in the water and attack even if they don't care about the Rebellion.
Really, the only way you can give Britain the ability to dedicate their undivided attention to the Rebellion is if either A: France and Britain are allied, or B: France is distracted by something so important that they ignore Britain, but not so important that they cannot be ignored by Britain.
I don't think you can really get either without a PoD well before the American Revolution.
Quick answer: It's not so much the material support from France that matters. It's the ideological recognition. If France hadn't recognized the rebels as the 'true' representatives of the colonies, there would be no 'war of independence'. Yes, there would still be fighting, but from the political standpoint it would be merely an insurgency. ...one that would probably go on for a while before fizzling out. Even without an outright English victory, without any recognition outside of the colonies the fighting would be between 'malcontents' and 'police forces' and would be fought over taxation and local issues rather then independence. Possibly the insurrection can go on for years. Possibly they can even push the English army from their borders, at least for some time. But with it being practically an UK internal affair, I can see Ireland gaining independence before the colonies do.
TFSmith121
Banned
What do the French get in return?
What do the French get in return?
"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests," as a fairly well-known European statesman once said.
Statecraft is a deadly serious practice, especially in the terms of power politics - and opportunities to promote one's interests at the expense of a rival are not to be passed over lightly. In fact, one could say it would be downright inhuman - even "ASB"ish - to expect otherwise...
So unless the British offer up something worthwhile, it is entirely in France's interest to weaken the British; France and Britain/England had been dueling for dominance in western Europe and the Mediterranean for decades ... to not support the Americans with everything they could spare would be surrender in that contest.
The Seventeenth to Nineteenth centuries define power politics in Europe, and the American Revolution gave France and the other European powers a real chance to destroy the British; if they had taken it, the future of Europe in the Eighteenth to Twentieth centuries would have been remarkably different.
Best,
What do the French get in return?
"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests," as a fairly well-known European statesman once said.
Statecraft is a deadly serious practice, especially in the terms of power politics - and opportunities to promote one's interests at the expense of a rival are not to be passed over lightly. In fact, one could say it would be downright inhuman - even "ASB"ish - to expect otherwise...
So unless the British offer up something worthwhile, it is entirely in France's interest to weaken the British; France and Britain/England had been dueling for dominance in western Europe and the Mediterranean for decades ... to not support the Americans with everything they could spare would be surrender in that contest.
The Seventeenth to Nineteenth centuries define power politics in Europe, and the American Revolution gave France and the other European powers a real chance to destroy the British; if they had taken it, the future of Europe in the Eighteenth to Twentieth centuries would have been remarkably different.
Best,
The French get in return a functioning government and economy.Even Turgot,the finance minister was against going to war.
TFSmith121
Banned
They had both...
They had both ... Which is why they were able to help break the British Empire.
Which was ultimately to France's advantage.
Enemy of my enemy, and all that.
Best,
They had both ... Which is why they were able to help break the British Empire.
Which was ultimately to France's advantage.
Enemy of my enemy, and all that.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Sure, which existed because of the continuity
Sure, which existed because of the continuity of French government and policy under the Bourbons and the wealth of France.
Best,
Sure, which existed because of the continuity of French government and policy under the Bourbons and the wealth of France.
Best,