Alternate results of American Revolutionary War, outside North America

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The American Revolutionary War widened into a global war with the British also fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch in the Caribbean, Gibraltar, Africa, and India in addition to European waters.

The British lost Tobago, Minorca, Goree or Senegal and maybe a few other places.

Is there any way, after this became a grand coalition war, for the British do better? Perhaps losing none of the territories mentioned, or somehow gaining some islands or outposts here or there from the French, Spanish or Dutch? Possible areas might be Britain gaining one or more of the lesser Antilles, land in the Guianas, some posts in Africa, India or the East Indies?
 
The actual British performance was at the high end of the possibilities.

They could have gotten a 1759 annus mirabulis but that is unlikely given that the French had prepared for this war.
 
It's actually surprising they didn't lose Gibraltar.

There are a lot of butterflies for the future of Britain's Mediterranean strategy had they lost the Great Siege.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I get that the British certainly could have done worse, much worse, and their late war recovery was quite impressive.

However, I'm still interested at the moment in them performing better or being luckier.

It seems to me that of the three European enemies it would have been easiest for Britain to make gains against the Dutch, the weakest and least prepared of their enemies, whom the British declared war on instead of vice versa. I thought the British had an expedition going to the Cape in 1782 that only turned back at the last minute, for example.
 
France losing outright, instead of picking up another sugar island and a slave port, would probably move forward the date of the French Revolution. The Dutch would also have a bad domestic crisis if the British took their colonies, which they tried to and would during the Napoleonic Wars. I'm not sure about Spain.

It depends on how much you wank the British. Also IOTL they gave the Americans pretty much everything they wanted (except Canada) to get them out of the war early. If Britain actually curbstomps France, Spain, and the Dutch like in 1759-61 they could take a harder line with the Americans, though I still think the USA would become an independent country since there was no way the British could raise the army needed to occupy the entire eastern seaboard.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
France losing outright, instead of picking up another sugar island and a slave port, would probably move forward the date of the French Revolution. The Dutch would also have a bad domestic crisis if the British took their colonies, which they tried to and would during the Napoleonic Wars. I'm not sure about Spain.

It depends on how much you wank the British. Also IOTL they gave the Americans pretty much everything they wanted (except Canada) to get them out of the war early. If Britain actually curbstomps France, Spain, and the Dutch like in 1759-61 they could take a harder line with the Americans, though I still think the USA would become an independent country since there was no way the British could raise the army needed to occupy the entire eastern seaboard.

That curbstomping of Spain leads to Britain keeping Florida, and it expresses its harder line on the US by keeping Georgia and Maine instead of just Canada? Maybe if they later go revolutionary the French and Dutch (but probably not the Spanish) will be genuine, albeit senior and junior, allies against Britain in later revolutionary wars rather than France puppeting Netherlands.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the Brits is they were just facing too many enemies with no allies. Your best approach is for the Anglo-Russian alliance to come off with an earlier POD, the Dutch to not enter, and/or for the Brits to make a separate peace with the Yanks early and then go town on their European rivals.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
or for the Brits to make a separate peace with the Yanks early and then go town on their European rivals.

I am particularly intrigued on how Britain could accomplish a separate peace earlier with the Americans, what the terms would be, and how Britain executes its pivot to "go to town" on its other assailants.
 
I am particularly intrigued on how Britain could accomplish a separate peace earlier with the Americans, what the terms would be, and how Britain executes its pivot to "go to town" on its other assailants.

The Americans would be ready to sign any peace deal that allows them to be an independent nation at pretty much any point. So the British could probably have given the 13 colonies independence at a much earlier stage, while hanging on to Canada and even Florida. However, it would likely need George III to have a different personality, for a different King to be on the throne, or for him to be removed by death or madness.

Without the need to blockade the American coast, the British fleet is superior to the French and Spanish combined.
 
Another possibility is a Seven Years War peace where Britain keeps the Atlantic fisheries. Without them, the French will only have a fraction of the merchant sailors and will not be able to compete as a naval power.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Americans would be ready to sign any peace deal that allows them to be an independent nation at pretty much any point. So the British could probably have given the 13 colonies independence at a much earlier stage, while hanging on to Canada and even Florida. However, it would likely need George III to have a different personality, for a different King to be on the throne, or for him to be removed by death or madness.

Without the need to blockade the American coast, the British fleet is superior to the French and Spanish combined.

I think, unless the Americans are performing much worse than OTL, or getting far less aid from the Bourbons, the Americans would regard having the territory due west from the 13 colonies to the Mississippi a sine qua non for peace. IE, independence granted with the Northwest Territory, Mississippi Territory, Kentucky or Tennessee still in British hands won't cut it.
 
I think, unless the Americans are performing much worse than OTL, or getting far less aid from the Bourbons, the Americans would regard having the territory due west from the 13 colonies to the Mississippi a sine qua non for peace. IE, independence granted with the Northwest Territory, Mississippi Territory, Kentucky or Tennessee still in British hands won't cut it.

Sure, but I think that misses on the requirement of being an independent nation, by being hemmed in on three sides. Also Kentucky and Tennesee were part of the 13 colonies already.
 
IIRC there was a substantial pro independence movement in Nova Scotia in 1776, to the point where they sent delegates to Washington during the siege of Boston asking for aid. Perhaps the ill planned Quebec expedition can be redirected to Nova Scotia ultimately resulting in some of the Maritimes joining the Union?
 
Top