AHC: Successful Spanish or French invasions of American colonies in War of Jenkins Ear, or F&I Wars?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Could the Spanish or French have mounted successful or at least disruptive or devastating invasions of any of the British 13 colonies during the 18th century before the ARW? Bonus points if any of these are amphibious invasions.
 
The expedition in Georgia failed and King Ferdinand the VI loathed war so he would have basically signed anything for a peace treaty.France never participated in the war.Maybe an offensive from Cuba to the 13 colonies would have been possible after the destruction of the fleet at Cartagena, but I don't think it would have been more than sacking some towns in Georgia or the Carolinas
 
The French invasion route in the seven years war was probably the best way to go but fundamentally they were at a considerable disadvantage given the presence of British regulars and the huge population of loyal colonials
 
They really didn't have the manpower to do it. The most they could do was try to keep the British out of the Ohio Valley, as in OTL.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The expedition in Georgia failed and King Ferdinand the VI loathed war so he would have basically signed anything for a peace treaty.France never participated in the war.Maybe an offensive from Cuba to the 13 colonies would have been possible after the destruction of the fleet at Cartagena, but I don't think it would have been more than sacking some towns in Georgia or the Carolinas

Even if conquest is *not* in the cards for the Spanish, could they scar some of the southern colonies and set back their development by raiding, sacking and burning towns and inciting some servile revolts in the Carolinas or Chesapeake?
 
Even if conquest is *not* in the cards for the Spanish, could they scar some of the southern colonies and set back their development by raiding, sacking and burning towns and inciting some servile revolts in the Carolinas or Chesapeake?
The Brits just lost 15000 soldiers due diseases,injuries or just death and they lost around 50 boats.Obviously San Agustín was not strong enough to launch an invasion to Georgia, but the Spanish for once had the naval superiority in the caribean for that bracket of time.
Raids organized from Cuba were certainly an option but that would be putting the fleet under risk.Overall I think the damage wouldn't have been that big unless the king explicitly ordered so.
If Spain had control of Louisiana it would have been a whole different story though.As Galvez showed during the american wars of independence.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If Spain had control of Louisiana it would have been a whole different story though.As Galvez showed during the american wars of independence.

Well, if we accelerate British and French involvement in the War of Austrian Succession by a couple years, Spain could still use Louisiana as a staging ground via alliance with the French. When was this Cartagena disaster for the British? 1741?
 
Well, if we accelerate British and French involvement in the War of Austrian Succession by a couple years, Spain could still use Louisiana as a staging ground via alliance with the French. When was this Cartagena disaster for the British? 1741?
20 of May of 1741.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think if under these circumstances, the Spanish in the summer or fall of 1741, do a seaborne invasion of the Carolinas and incite a servile revolt they can do a bit of damage, whether they have direct French support or not.

I don't think they can occupy even South Carolina or Georgia on any permanent basis, and the English colonists will reestablish their control, but a side effect of this is that it could confirm the Georgia trustees in their view that slavery in Georgia is an unacceptable security risk, for at least another generation. It also leads to further tightening of slave codes wherever slavery exists.
 
In Jenkins Ear, France chose not to join the fray. Then, in the early years of the Austrian Succession, they chose to pretend they weren't belligerents. It's obvious in hindsight, but the timing was great for taking on Britain in '40, knocking them out, and then going after Austria. Instead, they chose the Austria first policy.

Successful is in the eye of the beholder. The maximum gain Spain can hope for in America is an aggressive border settlement with Georgia, or maybe taking Georgia. The max France can hope for is northern Maine, and lands west of the future line of proclamation of 1763. They are NOT taking or keeping any of the english colonies. However, OTL, there was a legitimate invasion scare in England, and a legitimate slave uprising scare in the colonies. Spain/France could have taken advantage of the situation to make gains in America and isolating Austria, where they could carve off some gains. A successful invasion of England was still a possibility in this time frame.

Of course, all this has to be tempered with OTL's dreadful performance in the first half of the '40's by France/Spain. fix that pesky little issue so that they're halfway competent, and the world is their oyster.
 
In Jenkins Ear, France chose not to join the fray. Then, in the early years of the Austrian Succession, they chose to pretend they weren't belligerents. It's obvious in hindsight, but the timing was great for taking on Britain in '40, knocking them out, and then going after Austria. Instead, they chose the Austria first policy.

Successful is in the eye of the beholder. The maximum gain Spain can hope for in America is an aggressive border settlement with Georgia, or maybe taking Georgia. The max France can hope for is northern Maine, and lands west of the future line of proclamation of 1763. They are NOT taking or keeping any of the english colonies. However, OTL, there was a legitimate invasion scare in England, and a legitimate slave uprising scare in the colonies. Spain/France could have taken advantage of the situation to make gains in America and isolating Austria, where they could carve off some gains. A successful invasion of England was still a possibility in this time frame.

Of course, all this has to be tempered with OTL's dreadful performance in the first half of the '40's by France/Spain. fix that pesky little issue so that they're halfway competent, and the world is their oyster.
You would need to butterfly Isabel of Farnesio in the late 30's and kill Ferdinand VI so Charles the III directly inherits the throne.Spain's foreign policy was more focused on Italy due Isabel and the lack of interest of Phillip V to rule after the death of Louis I. Ferdinand VI was never interested in war and he would go to great lenghts to avoid it.That is why the Spanish army and navy weren't really ready for the 7 years war when Charles took control of the country.Overall a lot of things really need to change for the British colonies to be in any real danger
 
You would need to butterfly Isabel of Farnesio in the late 30's and kill Ferdinand VI so Charles the III directly inherits the throne.Spain's foreign policy was more focused on Italy due Isabel and the lack of interest of Phillip V to rule after the death of Louis I. Ferdinand VI was never interested in war and he would go to great lenghts to avoid it.That is why the Spanish army and navy weren't really ready for the 7 years war when Charles took control of the country.Overall a lot of things really need to change for the British colonies to be in any real danger
I was referring to War of Jenkins Ear/War of Austrian Succession. The time and the players were all ripe for a different 1740
 
Successful is in the eye of the beholder. The maximum gain Spain can hope for in America is an aggressive border settlement with Georgia, or maybe taking Georgia. The max France can hope for is northern Maine, and lands west of the future line of proclamation of 1763. They are NOT taking or keeping any of the english colonies.

I'm glad SOMEONE knows this. England's colonies were way too populated and established by this point in time, even border ones like Georgia and *Maine. France's best bet will always to annex Acadia's maximum border claim of the Kennebec River for it in the north and east, confirm the Appalachian Mountains as the western boundary, and Spanish Florida's best bet being to confine Georgia to the St. Mary's River and confirm its unofficial maximum claim of the Alabama River against French Louisiana. This essentially is the 1763 Proclamation Line, but with a minimal/founding-boundary area for *Maine and Georgia.
 
I was referring to War of Jenkins Ear/War of Austrian Succession. The time and the players were all ripe for a different 1740
I know but if you want to continue the war in America you will have to first stop the Italian lobby in the Spanish court to disappear as for Isabel and all the Italians that she brought getting Italian kingdoms and duchies for his offsprings was more important than the American colonies.Then Ferdinand came around 1746 in OTL but Phillip was really fragile and the death of his wife would have speed up his own death or he would simply abdicate as he was king as Isabel didn't want Ferdinand to rule, but Phillip never really wanted to rule to begin with.
So for Spain to commit in America you would need
  • No Isabel de Farnesio
  • No Ferdiand VI
  • A king that gives more importance to America and wants the family pacts to signed again (Charles III)
That is what in my eyes would need to happen for the war to be taken a step further in America.After America was secure in OTL Spain started to just siege Gibraltar and send troops to Italy to annex the kingdom of the two Sicilies,Parma and other Italian territories which I can't recall right now
 
The French invasion route in the seven years war was probably the best way to go but fundamentally they were at a considerable disadvantage given the presence of British regulars and the huge population of loyal colonials

just to buttress my earlier point, it seems as if the best Montcalm could come up with was 7,000 forces at Fort William Henry (he previously had 3,000 at Oswego). i haven't found actual information about what his plans were but the best they could have done was some modified version of what Burgoyne tried (namely, control of the Hudson to separate the colonies), and there was no practicable way he or any other french commander could have done this with 7,000-10,000 troops, considering the British easily outnumbered the french with regulars. it's also worth considering about a decade later that motivated colonials raised something like 15,000 troops at any given time for the continental army. i've read that 80,000, including militia, served.

as other posters pointed out, a secondary spanish campaign in the south will help but i'm not sure it would make much of a difference
 
Top