The Treaty of Windsor... is literally an impossible political abomination, that neither Spain nor Britain would have any part of. there is absolutely no political imperative for them to make any of these concessions. With the stronger US of OTL Spain did compete for influence in the SW...With what is argueably a weaker US this time around. they will compete even more vigorously and with more determined purpose. With a fractured South...they can crush Georgia if need be even if they are assisted by the Carolinans. Absent the French Revolution they have even more resources to deploy if necessary to make the point if need be.
For the British, there were several unresolved grievances that arose with the US that were not resolved until the Jay treaty, until then they occupied key forts in the NW. This US will not have the political unity or capability of meeting those grievances equitably, and argueably Britain will see this weakness to re-establish influence or out right control to redress those grievances. Even if recognized as winning their independence. They are still rebels and if an opening presented itself they would take it...The independence of Virginia and its claims over much of the NW offers just that opportunity.
I'm not saying its impossible, but its highly unlikely.
The agreement between spain and Britain on the western boundary at the 49th...is a decision of convenience for yourself. neither side has any politicalimperative to make this agreement at this time, and there is no reason for it to be discussed with the american republics who have no political stake in it in any case. They are still political and economic competitors. There is no reason for an agreement until one side or the other has more than the passing fur trappers imprint on an overlapping area of jurisdiction. Until permanent fortifications or settlements go up there is no political imperative to demarck the border officially. Economic transient trespassers may be an "annoyance" to be officially protested, but nothing to go to war over unless the trespassing is endemic and causing economic and political damage in one of the parties home countries.
It will be the 1820's or even the 30's before that is even remotely necessary.
However the absence of a French revolution does make a French Louisiana more possible, even likely I think. Royalist France and Britain though are even more political and economic competitors. Neither is likely to make political concessions to the other unless absolutely necessary and probably after some rather nasty unpleasantness.
Btw, Why has the Austrian Empire imploded....There has been no French republican experience in combination with a nationalistic awakening, so the the monarchy is likely to remain more firmly entrenched. This is of course the era of the Hapsburg-Bourbon Rapprochement as well and that should be factored in as well. Between the two of them they will dominate West Central Europe. its unlikely to survive much though past Leopold's reign without considerable effort. I await with anticipation the development of a non-republican revolution Europe...Obviously though there must have been some reform in the Ancien regime, as it was sorely needed to avoid the violent upheaval of the revolution. Btw... I think its likely that the Polish partitions would not have occurred without the revolution. The Austrians, divided on the point at first would be supported by the French in opposing the move. Which would provide the Poles with the breathing room to reform the constitutions governing the republic to resist further encroachment in future. IF Austria and France oppose it then the Russians who might be interested will not chance it and instead go with the original plan in concert with the Austrians and turn on the Ottomans instead. Prussia cannot move by itself as they will be opposed by everyone which will completely destroy the state, as it almost very well did in the 7 years war, but for the rather fortuitous death of the Tsarina. This is not the Prussia of Frederick II afterall.
For the British, there were several unresolved grievances that arose with the US that were not resolved until the Jay treaty, until then they occupied key forts in the NW. This US will not have the political unity or capability of meeting those grievances equitably, and argueably Britain will see this weakness to re-establish influence or out right control to redress those grievances. Even if recognized as winning their independence. They are still rebels and if an opening presented itself they would take it...The independence of Virginia and its claims over much of the NW offers just that opportunity.
I'm not saying its impossible, but its highly unlikely.
The agreement between spain and Britain on the western boundary at the 49th...is a decision of convenience for yourself. neither side has any politicalimperative to make this agreement at this time, and there is no reason for it to be discussed with the american republics who have no political stake in it in any case. They are still political and economic competitors. There is no reason for an agreement until one side or the other has more than the passing fur trappers imprint on an overlapping area of jurisdiction. Until permanent fortifications or settlements go up there is no political imperative to demarck the border officially. Economic transient trespassers may be an "annoyance" to be officially protested, but nothing to go to war over unless the trespassing is endemic and causing economic and political damage in one of the parties home countries.
It will be the 1820's or even the 30's before that is even remotely necessary.
However the absence of a French revolution does make a French Louisiana more possible, even likely I think. Royalist France and Britain though are even more political and economic competitors. Neither is likely to make political concessions to the other unless absolutely necessary and probably after some rather nasty unpleasantness.
Btw, Why has the Austrian Empire imploded....There has been no French republican experience in combination with a nationalistic awakening, so the the monarchy is likely to remain more firmly entrenched. This is of course the era of the Hapsburg-Bourbon Rapprochement as well and that should be factored in as well. Between the two of them they will dominate West Central Europe. its unlikely to survive much though past Leopold's reign without considerable effort. I await with anticipation the development of a non-republican revolution Europe...Obviously though there must have been some reform in the Ancien regime, as it was sorely needed to avoid the violent upheaval of the revolution. Btw... I think its likely that the Polish partitions would not have occurred without the revolution. The Austrians, divided on the point at first would be supported by the French in opposing the move. Which would provide the Poles with the breathing room to reform the constitutions governing the republic to resist further encroachment in future. IF Austria and France oppose it then the Russians who might be interested will not chance it and instead go with the original plan in concert with the Austrians and turn on the Ottomans instead. Prussia cannot move by itself as they will be opposed by everyone which will completely destroy the state, as it almost very well did in the 7 years war, but for the rather fortuitous death of the Tsarina. This is not the Prussia of Frederick II afterall.
Last edited: