AHQ: peace treaty terms after a successful Armada of 1779

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

So, let's suppose for a moment that the Spanish fleet isn't delayed by strong winds and makes it to the rendezvous point with the French fleet in time and the combined Bourbon fleet manages, despite heavy losses, to decisively defeat the Royal Navy and land 30,000 troops. Assuming that the Royal navy doesn't manage to disperse the enemy naval forces (their losses are too great to be able to contest control of the waters until squadrons from India and the West Indies arrive), the French forces manage to defeat the British forces in the south of England in some early engagements and advance towards London, while Ireland rises up in revolt against the weakened regular forces on the island and the various Protestant formations . Three scenarios that could happen (at least according to my estimation):

1) (rather unlikely) The French achieve near complete victory, capturing London and making most organised resistance impossible.

2) With their regular army severely weakened and the militias being unable to organise effectively, the British government decides to seek peace with the French and the Spanish. The minimum in this case would probably be that Spain would recover Menorca, Florida and Gibraltar, as well as the Falklands (which had nearly caused war almost a decade earlie) while British commercial privileges would be cancelled. For France, it would probably be the islands in the Carribean it had been forced to cede to Britain in 1763, as well as the contested islands in the area, and perhaps the Channel islands, to enhance Paris' control of the Channel, as well as lifting all restrictions with regard to the Indian trading posts.

3) The British don't manage to repel the invading armies, but they manage to slow them down before reaching London; as the war degenerates into a war of attrition, the French are starting to feel the financial pressure as the costs continue to mount. At the end, the British and the French, both rather exhausted, decide to reach a peace settlement. In this case, the treaty would probably be very similar to the OTL one.

So, what are your thoughts on the peace terms that could result from each case, especially the first scenario?

(I know this scenario is very difficult to happen in general, given the financial constraints of the French monarchy at the time and other factors, but perhaps not impossible)

 

[czareason]

So, let's suppose for a moment that the Spanish fleet isn't delayed by strong winds and makes it to the rendezvous point with the French fleet in time and the combined Bourbon fleet manages, despite heavy losses, to decisively defeat the Royal Navy and land 30,000 troops. Assuming that the Royal navy doesn't manage to disperse the enemy naval forces (their losses are too great to be able to contest control of the waters until squadrons from India and the West Indies arrive), the French forces manage to defeat the British forces in the south of England in some early engagements and advance towards London, while Ireland rises up in revolt against the weakened regular forces on the island and the various Protestant formations . Three scenarios that could happen (at least according to my estimation):

1) (rather unlikely) The French achieve near complete victory, capturing London and making most organised resistance impossible.

2) With their regular army severely weakened and the militias being unable to organise effectively, the British government decides to seek peace with the French and the Spanish. The minimum in this case would probably be that Spain would recover Menorca, Florida and Gibraltar, as well as the Falklands (which had nearly caused war almost a decade earlie) while British commercial privileges would be cancelled. For France, it would probably be the islands in the Carribean it had been forced to cede to Britain in 1763, as well as the contested islands in the area, and perhaps the Channel islands, to enhance Paris' control of the Channel, as well as lifting all restrictions with regard to the Indian trading posts.

3) The British don't manage to repel the invading armies, but they manage to slow them down before reaching London; as the war degenerates into a war of attrition, the French are starting to feel the financial pressure as the costs continue to mount. At the end, the British and the French, both rather exhausted, decide to reach a peace settlement. In this case, the treaty would probably be very similar to the OTL one.

So, what are your thoughts on the peace terms that could result from each case, especially the first scenario?

(I know this scenario is very difficult to happen in general, given the financial constraints of the French monarchy at the time and other factors, but perhaps not impossible)

Frankly each scenario would lead to the end of the war. British forces in Europe have been weaken, they would have give up territory more than a few islands and a city in India. Quebec goes back to the French, Spain receives territory also maybe Hanover This probably also leads to earlier American Independence. The question is whether the British Southern campaign happens, if so ATL is alot like OTL except Washington wins a lot sooner and in a more decisive mannerf. If not, no Arnold betayal, no destruction of the Southern army and Gates' reputation, no Congress learning to but out of military appointments, no Kings Mountain, no Cowpens and NO YORKTOWN. Meaning no President Washington. Just a weak Congress with an angry army and two none disgraced generals both with egos ready to either take power or avenge himself and likely take power.

 

[Wendell]

Frankly each scenario would lead to the end of the war. British forces in Europe have been weaken, they would have give up territory more than a few islands and a city in India. Quebec goes back to the French, Spain receives territory also maybe Hanover This probably also leads to earlier American Independence. The question is whether the British Southern campaign happens, if so ATL is alot like OTL except Washington wins a lot sooner and in a more decisive mannerf. If not, no Arnold betayal, no destruction of the Southern army and Gates' reputation, no Congress learning to but out of military appointments, no Kings Mountain, no Cowpens and NO YORKTOWN. Meaning no President Washington. Just a weak Congress with an angry army and two none disgraced generals both with egos ready to either take power or avenge himself and likely take power.

This might put Quebec and Florida in the United States at independence.

 

[unprincipled peter]

There have been several discussions on this topic. Here's one from a couple years ago. Seems to me, there was one more recent, but maybe time flies

What if the Armada of 1779 lands a Bourbon Army in the UK - effects on the peace settlement?

If the Franco-Spanish Armada of 1779 lands an Army in the UK, what are the most likely results militarily, navally and diplomatically? Would it result in the UK offering terms early? If so, do they make sacrifices like they made in 1783? If they are forced to give away more, what do they give...

www.alternatehistory.com

Spain's goals are very clear: recovery of Florida, Gibraltar, Minorca.

France's goals boil down to: knock Britain down a peg. They'll probably want favorable resolution of disputed Caribbean territory. I don't think they wanted Canada back, and, I think, had promised the Patriots they wouldn't. They are still delusional that the newly minted USA is going to rush into their arms as a trading partner, so they might tack Canada on to that entity. Maybe regain a toehold in India.

Sans complete, devastating, victory, Britain will NOT be dismantled. Spain was much more interested in limiting the war, so they'll want to get in, declare victory, and get out. France might get sucked into pushing an agenda which leads to a long morass.

Aside from pure military results, the sheer economic devastation of Britain will be immense.

 

[unprincipled peter]

USA independence is all but guaranteed in '79-80. Spain doesn't want it, but France will insist on it. Britain will be in no shape to win even if it isn't part of the peace treaty. You might see Britain come to terms with the Patriots in order to concentrate on Spain/France. Patriots will be more than happy to see S/F hung out to dry.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Armada of 1779 Succeeds: Peace Treaty?

They would get both,just strip Britain of everything. No they would not because they (France and Spain) did not have the means to take effective control of everything. Let’s kind of do the math. Since The 13 colonies rebelled most of all (although of course not only) because of the...

www.alternatehistory.com

Another decent discussion

 

[thatsagoodpoint]

Frankly each scenario would lead to the end of the war. British forces in Europe have been weaken, they would have give up territory more than a few islands and a city in India. Quebec goes back to the French, Spain receives territory also maybe Hanover This probably also leads to earlier American Independence. The question is whether the British Southern campaign happens, if so ATL is alot like OTL except Washington wins a lot sooner and in a more decisive mannerf. If not, no Arnold betayal, no destruction of the Southern army and Gates' reputation, no Congress learning to but out of military appointments, no Kings Mountain, no Cowpens and NO YORKTOWN. Meaning no President Washington. Just a weak Congress with an angry army and two none disgraced generals both with egos ready to either take power or avenge himself and likely take power.

The colonies would have their own monarchy

 

[funnyhat]

There have been several discussions on this topic. Here's one from a couple years ago. Seems to me, there was one more recent, but maybe time flies

What if the Armada of 1779 lands a Bourbon Army in the UK - effects on the peace settlement?

If the Franco-Spanish Armada of 1779 lands an Army in the UK, what are the most likely results militarily, navally and diplomatically? Would it result in the UK offering terms early? If so, do they make sacrifices like they made in 1783? If they are forced to give away more, what do they give...

www.alternatehistory.com

Spain's goals are very clear: recovery of Florida, Gibraltar, Minorca.

France's goals boil down to: knock Britain down a peg. They'll probably want favorable resolution of disputed Caribbean territory. I don't think they wanted Canada back, and, I think, had promised the Patriots they wouldn't. They are still delusional that the newly minted USA is going to rush into their arms as a trading partner, so they might tack Canada on to that entity. Maybe regain a toehold in India.

Sans complete, devastating, victory, Britain will NOT be dismantled. Spain was much more interested in limiting the war, so they'll want to get in, declare victory, and get out. France might get sucked into pushing an agenda which leads to a long morass.

Aside from pure military results, the sheer economic devastation of Britain will be immense.

Spain also wants Jamaica back. IOTL the French/Spanish were going to launch an expedition there, but the plans were dropped after the battle of the Saintes.

France occupied several of the Lesser Antilles and will want to keep them, instead of returning them all (save Tobago) as IOTL.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

This might put Quebec and Florida in the United States at independence.

Florida would almost certainly go back to Spain. Quebec might go back to France. The United States would have a good shot at getting Nova Scotia though.

 

[Wendell]

Florida would almost certainly go back to Spain. Quebec might go back to France. The United States would have a good shot at getting Nova Scotia though.

Does France even want Quebec back though?

 

[Aichi72]

Does France even want Quebec back though?

Probably not but I doubt they want it in American hands. Basically handing over good Catholic Frenchmen to the Protestant Americans probably wouldn't go down well back in France proper or in Québec.

 

[Wendell]

Probably not but I doubt they want it in American hands. Basically handing over good Catholic Frenchmen to the Protestant Americans probably wouldn't go down well back in France proper or in Québec.

American hands are preferable to British ones though, no?

 

[czareason]

American hands are preferable to British ones though, no?

French hands are preferable to American ones. This victory would viewed as a return to dominance by French and the revenge for the 1588 Spanish armada by Spain. They would each want something.

The colonies would have their own monarchy

Who would it be? Washington is probably out, and Ben Franklin is old. Revolts would happen.A monarch would need an army, one with resources and paid solders to hold power. I can think of three European nations who would likely be willing to fund persons who tried to stabilized the nation.
Of course the USA could just breakup due to a lack of unity instead.

 

[Aichi72]

American hands are preferable to British ones though, no?

Not particularly, I doubt they want the US to become too powerful either.

 

[raharris1973]

Frankly each scenario would lead to the end of the war. British forces in Europe have been weaken, they would have give up territory more than a few islands and a city in India. Quebec goes back to the French, Spain receives territory also maybe Hanover This probably also leads to earlier American Independence. The question is whether the British Southern campaign happens, if so ATL is alot like OTL except Washington wins a lot sooner and in a more decisive mannerf. If not, no Arnold betayal, no destruction of the Southern army and Gates' reputation, no Congress learning to but out of military appointments, no Kings Mountain, no Cowpens and NO YORKTOWN. Meaning no President Washington. Just a weak Congress with an angry army and two none disgraced generals both with egos ready to either take power or avenge himself and likely take power.

Spanish Hanover? The possibility of the British being left to continue their war with the Americans, even while making peace with the Bourbons? Interesting speculation.

American hands are preferable to British ones though, no?

Maybe, if possibly for the reason unprincipled Peter suggested, they think the US will be a trading partner and see Quebecois as additional agents of influence. They'll probably be disappointed on both counts.

 

[thatsagoodpoint]

Who would it be? Washington is probably out, and Ben Franklin is old. Revolts would happen.A monarch would need an army, one with resources and paid solders to hold power. I can think of three European nations who would likely be willing to fund persons who tried to stabilized the nation.
Of course the USA could just breakup due to a lack of unity instead.

I agree with you, could split into multiple different monarchies or a European monarchy could attempt to conquer individual states. But even if it’s not Washington or Franklin there would be a general ambitious enough to try for it

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

Thank you all for your replies!

Frankly each scenario would lead to the end of the war. British forces in Europe have been weaken, they would have give up territory more than a few islands and a city in India. Quebec goes back to the French, Spain receives territory also maybe Hanover This probably also leads to earlier American Independence. The question is whether the British Southern campaign happens, if so ATL is alot like OTL except Washington wins a lot sooner and in a more decisive mannerf. If not, no Arnold betayal, no destruction of the Southern army and Gates' reputation, no Congress learning to but out of military appointments, no Kings Mountain, no Cowpens and NO YORKTOWN. Meaning no President Washington. Just a weak Congress with an angry army and two none disgraced generals both with egos ready to either take power or avenge himself and likely take power.

Well, earlier independence is certainly a possibility, although I thought that it would also be possible for the British government to concede to most of the demands of the colonists, who might be convinced of the danger of a restored French presence in North America and thus make peace with London (tbh, I don't know ow much the American leadership at the time was committed to independence).

So earlier independence probably means a more unstable US? Interesting. I also think that with Britain having been largely neutralised and France and Spain primarily dictating the terms of the peace, the territorial settlement in North America would probably be rather different from OTL: the Spanish had designs over the lands between the Appalachian mountains and the Mississippi, because they were part of the territory of Louisiana (in 1763, they got only the western part of the territoty). Both the proposal of Madrid in 1780 and Aranda's draft in 1782 envisioned the whole area or most of it being transferred to Spanish control. So there is most likely going to be friction between Spain and the US government over this issue. I guess a United States forced to remain each of the Alleghenies or receiving only limited territories west of the mountains (the Alleghenies' Plateau), would add to the instability, since the grievances over the inability to claim land west of this line before the revolution would have largely remained.

Hannover's fate is another interesting question: Vergennes would really want to avoid the formation of a European coalition against France, which would be a likely development after a successful Armada (he seems to have been thinking of Austria moving closer to Britain following this event). So he would probably try to keep the other powers neutral. While he had largely managed this before the Armada operation was launched (with the treaty of Teschen he managed to stave off a war in Central Europe), the change in the balance of power after the invasion would have changed. A French operation in northern Germany under these circumstances would be both unwanted by the French leadership at the time, would have made peace negotiations with London more difficult and would have probably led to a "Union of the Princes" against the French, with Austria unwilling to back the French in this. So I think that, for the time being, it would have remained in personal union with Britain.

Florida would almost certainly go back to Spain. Quebec might go back to France. The United States would have a good shot at getting Nova Scotia though.

American hands are preferable to British ones though, no?

Well, iirc, it was again primarily Spain that wanted to virtually extinguish all British presence in North America. Vergennes seems to have wanted to restore a sort of equilibrium and bring an end to the cycle of wars that had marked French-British relations and given how France had ended up after the "Carthaginian Peace" of the Seven Years War, he probably considered stripping Britain of all its territories in the area rather counterproductive, as it could lead it down the path of revenge seeking and also, French diplomatic isolation that could prove disastrous if war was to come again (and here, Britain's ultimate fate would seem to confirm these fears). So he would probably not present larger demands than OTL as far as that area would be concerned, instead focusing more on the Carribean and perhaps India, where the French would have larger interests.

Nova Scotia is certainly a possibility; what I am at a loss to determine (sort off) is the western border of the US, mainly due to the fact that ITTL, Britain will most likely not be able to give the territories between the Appalachians and the Mississippi to the new government and therefore, the disposition will be primarily determined by Spain and France, with the latter trying to balance the demands of Madrid and the Congress.

Who would it be? Washington is probably out, and Ben Franklin is old. Revolts would happen.A monarch would need an army, one with resources and paid solders to hold power. I can think of three European nations who would likely be willing to fund persons who tried to stabilized the nation.
Of course the USA could just breakup due to a lack of unity instead.

A breakup is certainly possible ITTL I think: with a peace settlement most likely severely limiting US presence west of the original Thirteen Colonies, no clearly dominant figure or group and, the war having ended earlier than OTL (which I presume would have preempted a good deal of the centralisation), I guess the states would have ended up in a loose union while being practically independent..

Spain's goals are very clear: recovery of Florida, Gibraltar, Minorca.

France's goals boil down to: knock Britain down a peg. They'll probably want favorable resolution of disputed Caribbean territory. I don't think they wanted Canada back, and, I think, had promised the Patriots they wouldn't. They are still delusional that the newly minted USA is going to rush into their arms as a trading partner, so they might tack Canada on to that entity. Maybe regain a toehold in India.

Sans complete, devastating, victory, Britain will NOT be dismantled. Spain was much more interested in limiting the war, so they'll want to get in, declare victory, and get out. France might get sucked into pushing an agenda which leads to a long morass.

Aside from pure military results, the sheer economic devastation of Britain will be immense.

Interesting analysis, I think most points are valid. As I said, Louis and his ministers would probably leave Quebec and Canada alone and instead focus on the Carribean and secondarily on India. Other terms would probably be getting the British commissioner out of Dunkirk, making London abandon all opposition to changes of sovereignty over the Austrian Netherlands (since the Bavarian question is still open and, with the war against Britain mostly over, Louis' unwillingess to engage in continental matters could have dissipated somewhat).

The unwillingness of Spain to prosecute a lengthy war is also well-documented, and the main cause behind the whole Armada idea (because it would keep the war in Europe, thus sparing Spain's colonies the likely fighting and Royal Navy raids and it could allow for a swift end in the conflict). But I don't think France would really decide to continue alone if Spain had declared its unwillingness to do the same, even if it had been victorious.

 

[funnyhat]

French hands are preferable to American ones. This victory would viewed as a return to dominance by French and the revenge for the 1588 Spanish armada by Spain. They would each want something.

Not necessarily. France really wants good relations with the new USA and hopes to establish a lasting alliance. The fate of the Canadiens is not that important to the French crown, as long as they have the right to Catholic worship. French possession of Canada complicates its ability to be friends with the USA.

France by this time is focused on the West Indies, where the greatest profits are to be found.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Does France even want Quebec back though?

Even if they did get it back, with Nova Scotia, the USA would be well positioned to take it in any future conflict with France.

 

[funnyhat]

Even if they did get it back, with Nova Scotia, the USA would be well positioned to take it in any future conflict with France.

France didn’t lose Acadia and Canada due to land forces. It lost them due to the naval disparity. That is not a problem vis-à-vis the US.

If France gets these back, I would expect it to hold onto them. The issue is more political : if France controls Canada, the US will naturally turn to the British. That’s why France didn’t want Canada back IOTL.