Your challenge is to have England retain control over Calais for as long as possible. If you can somehow have the English keep it until at least 1900, that'll get you bonus points.
AHC: England keeps Calais
- Thread starter Night Gaul
- Start date
The reality is, once you get into the 17th/18th centuries and the near continuous warfare vs France, Calais is always going to fall. Britain, of course, is always going to do well in the colonies by virtue of the RN. The question to ask, at what point is Britain going to want to swap, say, a lucrative carribean island for a strategically irrelevant and indefensible Calais?
As noted above, Britain barely cared for Hannover, and didn't really want it. There was a large faction in British politics that was happy to let it be over run and to trade it away in any peace settlement.
As noted above, Britain barely cared for Hannover, and didn't really want it. There was a large faction in British politics that was happy to let it be over run and to trade it away in any peace settlement.
I would not say that Calais was strategically irrelevant. Holding both sides of the narrowest point of the English channel meant that anyone actually wanting to act against Britain (such as an invasion) have to take out Calais first. It is also a point for Britain to easily land forces to the continent to intervene in any conflict in France or the Low Countries, a port that can be supplied by sea and a strong fortification that would usually buy England time to gather forces to counter any enemy invasion.
It is possible for England to hold Calais, but it will take serious investment in fortification and a permanent garrison. However, it would relieve some of the need for naval presence in the Channel.
I won't say they didn't like Hannover so much as they didn't like their monarch not being 100% focused on Britain.
The faction was willing to let Hannover be overrun but I won't say that ANY of them, however anti-Hannoverian they were, who would WILLINGLY piss off their king and trade Hannover for Guadeloupe or Martinique etc.
I'm not sure they'd even be able to -- this was in the days when the monarch still had some influence over politics.
If England wanted to hold Calais, then it'd take serious investment and commitment in terms of troops.
France was the most powerful land force in Europe for many years - in any war with France, Calais is going to be the first place to fall. The level of investment required by England just to keep it makes it strategically irrelevant - divesting vast sums to hold it just for the sake of holding it - when all it's doing is the job that the RN and the channel was doing anyway.
Maybe the Netherlands might be the answer. What if (big if though), Queen Elizabeth supports the Netherlands, becomes its queen and because of the English support the Dutch revolt is more succesful and includes all of Flanders (including Dunkirk) and maybe part of Wallonia. In that case Calais can become part of a fortified area that includes the Netherlands. That would make Calais a bit more secure. (although the timing doesn't exactly work out, I believe)