American Revolutionary War if George II/III had lost Hanover in 7 Years War

Monter said:


Really, continental politics could go any which way-

Most dangerous course of events for Britain would be if the Franco-Austrian-Russian alliance stays together for decades, its members don’t war on each other, they possibly all reach a deal to partition the Ottoman Empire, they promote their own industries and restrict British trade, and France uses its strong position to take over the southern Netherlands, overawe the Dutch Republic, build up its navy and start peeling back British colonies around the world.

I can't possibly see all three maintaining a long term alliance. It will either be a Franco-Russian alliance long term or a Franco-Russian one.

Having an industrial revolution also requires a lot more than "promoting industry" like spending money on something in Europa Universalis. The history of economic development is littered with nations that have failed because the overall governance climate is not right.

One key ingredient is you need a governing regime that either (1) can not expropriate capitalist windfalls because of checks on its power, or (2) credibly commits to not doing it of its own volition. Given the second scenario is not intuitively in the governments interest, it's not going to happen until countries witness other nations do the first scenario and realising the enlightened long-term interest in forsaking money that you can easily grab.

Out of the four major powers here, only the UK has (1) and neither France, Russia or Austria are coming close to a mindset of doing (2). That means the UK will have its industrial revolution, and become a lot richer than the rest. I can't possibly see why Russia or Austria would then choose to miss out on UK trade to benefit Franco-British rivalry.
 
I think 2 kinds of british colonies must be distinguished : the settlement colonies and the classic exploitation/control colonies.

Considering the demographic dynamics and advance, by that time nobody but the settlers themselves could oust Britain out of the core of the north american east coast, except for Territories north fringe of those colonies (Maine, Vermont, and what became British Canada).

It was not a matter of sea power but of mere demography. Just consider Portugal with Brazil or Spain with its continental american colonies because they had a critical mass of settler population nobody could challenge. Time, having been the first and only one to reach this critical mass on these territories ensured that those territories would remain culturally mainly creole portuguese, creole spanish, ... etc.

The other classic exploitation/control colonies could be lost to a rival power.

A large demographics does not immunize you from conquest. Ask France in 1941, Belguim in 1914, Poland- anytime in history, or all of Europe in 1810, and don't forget Alexander conquering the Persian Empire! It wasn't until the Spanish "invented" guerrilla warfare against Napoleon that showed the world that locals and small groups could fight successfully against large occupying armies without organizing as an army and fighting large battles; typically when a nation-state is defeated, the population rolls over; you're not going to see Americans rise up like the OTL American Revolution if they are conquered; it's simply a nationalistic myth. Even in America's Revolutionary War it wasn't small militias or guerrilla tactics that won the day, it was standard European-style battles (Saratoga, Brooklyn Heights, and Yorktown) and sieges (Boston, Ticondaroga, Quebec) that made up the majority of what happened and decided the war and how it played out.
 
I can't possibly see all three maintaining a long term alliance. It will either be a Franco-Russian alliance long term or a Franco-Russian one. .

note that austria and russia were both interested cutting up the ottoman.

France would have stayed out given their lack of interest, louis XVI's disinclination to meddle in the Empire and his Austrian wife. Peace might last a while if the diplomats do their jobs.

Britain may be left out.

A trade of Bavaria for Belgium?

Airsto-Russian domination of the balkans?
 
A large demographics does not immunize you from conquest. Ask France in 1941, Belguim in 1914, Poland- anytime in history, or all of Europe in 1810, and don't forget Alexander conquering the Persian Empire! It wasn't until the Spanish "invented" guerrilla warfare against Napoleon that showed the world that locals and small groups could fight successfully against large occupying armies without organizing as an army and fighting large battles; typically when a nation-state is defeated, the population rolls over; you're not going to see Americans rise up like the OTL American Revolution if they are conquered; it's simply a nationalistic myth. Even in America's Revolutionary War it wasn't small militias or guerrilla tactics that won the day, it was standard European-style battles (Saratoga, Brooklyn Heights, and Yorktown) and sieges (Boston, Ticondaroga, Quebec) that made up the majority of what happened and decided the war and how it played out.

Sure, but what I meant was about far-away colonies. Not about neighbour european territories.

Invading and conquering a neighbour territory of your homeland is very different from doing it on another continent. If you don't have a big enough population on this other continent, it's mission impossible because you can't project enough power 5000 or 6000 kilometers away cross an ocean to hold territories against à big-installed population base.

The spanish conquistadors did not do it on their own. They conquered Americas with the alliance and military support of many indians.


PS : the people of the iberic peninsula may well have invented guerilla warfare. But as far as they are concerned, they did it 2000 years earlier than you stated : in the second century BC against roman armies. And what they demonstrated then is that guerilla warfare is, in the long-run, a losing strategy when you face a superior enemy that is ready to use any degree of violence to win.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Socrates, what did you mean to write here, you mentioned a Franco-Russian alternative twice as if it was two different alternatives:
It will either be a Franco-Russian alliance long term or a Franco-Russian one.

Socrates, based on what you're saying here,
the UK will have its industrial revolution, and become a lot richer than the rest.
along with the idea that the French led coalition on the mainland won't last, then British historians might regard the British loss of influence on Europe in the 7 years war as a strategically unimportant setback, and indeed, there might be a view that British efforts on the European continent during the wars of Spanish and Austrian Succession had been excessive. (Things like Marlborough's campaigns.)


This is an interesting hypothetical, but I'd have to imagine that the British monarch would get back Hanover in return for the overseas colonies of France it took in the 1763 negotiations.

---

George ii would. George III would not.

George II might *want* too pay ransom for Hanover while George II might not *want* to, but parliament would not give either King the freedom to do as they please and would not want to pay the price in terms of colonial territory or money it would take to get Hanover back, so the result could be the same under both.


note that austria and russia were both interested cutting up the ottoman.

yes

France would have stayed out given their lack of interest, louis XVI's disinclination to meddle in the Empire and his Austrian wife. Peace might last a while if the diplomats do their jobs.

Yes, the French might have stayed out, or seen this as an opportunity to gain compensating influence on the Maghrib or Egypt.

Britain may be left out.

of what, continental alliances, I agree.

A trade of Bavaria for Belgium?

This might not even come up. With Prussia being wrecked and Austria regaining Silesia, the terms of the treaty of Versailles-1757 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles_(1757)) could result in the Austrian Netherlands falling into Bourbon hands as soon as the war on the continent is settled.


Airsto-Russian domination of the balkans?
 
If the war ends after 1758 (Third Treaty of Versailles that everyone forgots), the Bourbons isn't getting the Austrians Netherlands.
 
George II might *want* too pay ransom for Hanover while George II might not *want* to, but parliament would not give either King the freedom to do as they please and would not want to pay the price in terms of colonial territory or money it would take to get Hanover back, so the result could be the same under both.

You are confusing 19th and 20th century monarchy for 18th century monarchy. Parliament may have been powerful, especially since it was after the Glorious Revolution, but the king is not the cipher. Parliament could not simply override the king. The Prime Minister would only make policy in defiance of the king at his peril.

If he does, the king would just fire him. If Parliament was hostile, he would dissolve it and call for new elections, and he would win and have a majority, just as he won every parliamentary election before the Reform Act of 1832. Want an example? In 1783, a majority of Parliament wanted to pass a new East India Bill sponsored by Fox and North. George III opposed it, and declared to the Lords that everyone who voted for it would be his enemy. The House of Lords then voted it down. He then fired Fox and North and the entire ministry despite it having a majority in the commons.

George then appointed Pitt the Younger Prime Minster.

The House of Commons passed resolution after resolution condemning Pitt, but it didn't force Pitt out of office. Then George III dissolved Parliament, and elections were held in 1784 in which the Treasury resources were brought to bear like in previous elections, and it gave Pitt the majority he needed.


When Pitt went against the king on Catholic emancipation, George III fired him in 1801 and replaced him with Addington.

When the Talents ministry tried to force Catholic emancipation in 1807, the king fired them and appointed Portland as PM.

It was only after the Reform bill, when the government was not able to manipulate the elections through patronage, rotten boroughs etc, did the King lose this power. The first time the king lost an election after firing the current Prime Minister is William IV in 1834 after firing Lord Melbourne. He called a new election, and Melbourne's party retained a majority, and he was forced to have Melbourne as Prime Minister.

As for the premise, George III could not have cared less for Hanover. He never visited it, unlike his predecessors, considered himself English, and was proud about it. George II was different, since he more German than British.

Indeed, it was for this considerations that all ministries during the Hanoverian era had as their policy the defense of Hanover, which would not matter if Parliament could just ignore the king's will at the pleasure.

If the Peace Treaty is after the death of George II, then the British won't be too miffed about losing Hanover.
 
How does this work? Who would even get Hanover? My recollection of the Franco-Austro-Russian plan in the Seven Years War is that Austria was going to get Silesia and Parma, France would get the Austrian Netherlands as a satellite state ruled by the Duke of Parma, Poland would get East Prussia, Sweden would get Pomerania, and Russia would get some Polish territory.

This would leave us with a much reduced electorate of Brandenburg, but one that would still include the old and new marks, Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Cleves, Mark, and East Friesland. This would still be a significant German power, though obviously pretty broken compared to Frederick's kingdom. Presumably Frederick himself would be forced out, and the throne given to his brother August Wilhelm or nephew Friedrich Wilhelm.

But I don't recall any plans as to anything being done with Hanover. Almost certainly, at the very worst, the French would just ransom it in exchange for British conquests in the colonies. Because what else do you do with it? The French don't actually want it. The only obvious person to give it to is the Duke of Brunswick, who also fought on the wrong side in the war.
 
Tonifranz,

You make good points but George III was a far more powerful and interventionist King than George II was. His ministers, especially Bute, had made large changes to the payments systems in government that took power away from the Byzantine bureaucracy that leading parliamentarians (namely Walpole and the Pelhams) had previously used to control parliamentary votes. So what you say is correct for George II but not George III.

And even George III was frustrated time and time again, often being unable to appoint his preferred governments because they did not have majority support in parliament. One example was when he had to put in Pitt the Elder as PM despite the fact he hated him. He might be able to get away with winning new elections over something so obscure to the general public as the regulation of the EIC (where he also had a very powerful EIC lobby on his side). But that's not at all clear if the fight was sacrificing British colonies for Hannover.
 
I'm also not sure the Revolution goes ahead on schedule. George III's humbling in the Seven Years' War might make him a less belligerent man in terms of interfering politically. That could have ramifications.[/QUOTE]

My POD has Hanover falling before George III takes over in the 7 Years War. He didn't care overly much about Hanover then, though he did treat them fairly in later years, not allowing Britain's public opinion to dominate Hanover's internal politics.

I assumed that much of the rest of the 7 Years war ends the same, Britain taking Canada and possibly India.
 
How does this work? Who would even get Hanover? My recollection of the Franco-Austro-Russian plan in the Seven Years War is that Austria was going to get Silesia and Parma, France would get the Austrian Netherlands as a satellite state ruled by the Duke of Parma, Poland would get East Prussia, Sweden would get Pomerania, and Russia would get some Polish territory.

This would leave us with a much reduced electorate of Brandenburg, but one that would still include the old and new marks, Magdeburg, Halberstadt, Cleves, Mark, and East Friesland. This would still be a significant German power, though obviously pretty broken compared to Frederick's kingdom. Presumably Frederick himself would be forced out, and the throne given to his brother August Wilhelm or nephew Friedrich Wilhelm.

But I don't recall any plans as to anything being done with Hanover. Almost certainly, at the very worst, the French would just ransom it in exchange for British conquests in the colonies. Because what else do you do with it? The French don't actually want it. The only obvious person to give it to is the Duke of Brunswick, who also fought on the wrong side in the war.

This has been a pain for me too.

I was assuming that French troops would have overrun Hanover and the right to determine her fate should fall to France. But Austria would have been almost as horrified with French domination of Northern Germany as bad as Frederick taking Silesia (my TL assumes Prussia loses the war to Austria/Russia). I thought that there would be a temperary hold of the Duchy by a nominal younger grandson of Louis XV on the assumptino that Hanover would be a piece in a series of trades involving Bavaria and the Austrian Netherlands or Milan.

The religious issue would be a problem as Hanover is mostly Protestant but the religious wars of Europe were largely over. Having a Catholic prince (a toddler at this time under the rule of Protestant ministers) would be doable as in Saxony.

However, it would be uncomfortable for all until a trade was made. The Habsburgs and Bourbons had been at each other's throats for generations and Maria Theresa would loath having another Bourbon within the Empire (she would not tolerate a union of France and Hanover). The engagement of a French Prince to an Austrian Princess might keep the peace until a deal could be made.
 
But with a Bourbon in Hannover that pretty much means that Brandenburg is the only Protestant elector left, it would be big deal.
 
Background:

1. Britain won Canada in 7 Years War from France.

P0D:
1. The American Revolution continues as in OTL.

2. In OTL 1776, a force of 30,000 Britons and Germans showed up and spent the year kicking the Continental Army's ass. The majority of this reinforcement force was German. Note that many thousands of German mercenaries and Hanoverians were also hired to man other areas of Britain's domains, thus freeing up Britons to fight that otherwise could not (some went to the Channel Islands, Ireland, the West Indies, India, Gibraltar, Minorca). Britain did find a few more thousand from other German states but they were of poor quality.

Best luck was with using mercs in "safe areas", where they weren't called on to do much real fighting. Worst luck was, after the ARW became a world war the number of "safe areas" quickly dropped to zero. Unless the British try to use German mercs in India, Canada, and the UK!:eek:

The poorer quality mercs tended to desert at the first opportunity in the 13 Colonies.

3. With Hanover gone (they lent 5,000 at least to Britain) and Brunswick/Hesse/Lippe unable to sent reinforcements (they rented 30,000 at least, 20,000 in 1776), in 1776 Britain could probably only dispatch closer to 10,000 men to America to reinforce William Howe's 10,000 or so already there (the remnants of the Boston force had sailed to Halifax for the winter). With only 20,000 men total from Quebec to Florida, how would 1776 have played out?

Would Britain send any reinforcements (OTL was about 10,000 under Guy Carleton) to Quebec, thus keeping Quebec safe throughout the end of the War

Absolutely. With the Seven Years War ending so badly, and the Quebecois having proven themselves so loyal in the 1775 campaign against the invading Americans, the British CANNOT lose half a continent (which failing to relieve the besieged Carleton would mean) and give the Americans such an easy victory. The North Government would almost certainly fall, even if George III then jump started North again.

or would they risk Quebec and concentrate on a "knock-out blow" in New York?

New York isn't going anywhere, and Howe has the forces to save Quebec, drive Arnold back to New York State, and kick Washington's ass still. Its just that more of Washington's army may escape (before they desert anyway), and the Tories mayl have less enthusiasm in NYC than OTL (which was ALOT).

Would Howe dispatch several thousand men under Clinton in a failed attack on Charleston?

No. Something's gotta give somewhere.

Would the small garrisons in Florida been viable?

Yes, as long as Europe is still staying out of things.

Would less of an ass-kicking at the hands of a weakened British Army in 1776 bring France and/or Spain into the fight a year early?

No. Spain was much less enthusiastic about supporting the American rebels than France, and France's entry was based on a very deliberately paced military build-up, mobilization, and naval strategic redeployment to allow them to sortie the fleet before the British could employ their traditional methods of blockade to neutralize the Franco-Spanish fleets.

By the time that the French went to war, the Royal Navy had discovered to their dismay that the French Navy had departed their harbors and were long gone. Worse yet, in a deliberate policy between 1763 and 1778, the French Navy had adopted a policy of "build, build, build", while the RN's seemed to be "rot, rot, rot".

Quantitatively and especially qualitatively the French fleets in 1778 were probably closer to parity with the Royal Navy than at any other time between the two countries ever. Before or since. But the French had to wait to be ready.

This was an unpopular war in Britain, volunteers hard to come by for most of the war. Would Britain take more..FIRM...measures to draft soldiers, at the possible expense of British public ill-will?

Actually, once France entered the war volunteers swarmed into the army, especially the militias.

Then there's the problem of conscription. If you really need to enact a DRAFT to raise an army to squelch a domestic rebellion, what does that say about the political foundations of your own cause? Talk about a rich man's war:mad:

Would the role of Loyalists (arguably ignored much of the war) be greater?

The problem with using Loyalists is that you need the kinder gentler leadership which you aren't going to find in the British Army of the 1770s. No "Hearts & Minds" here. Just "SUBMIT OR ELSE!" For every Ferguson in the British Army, they had three or ten or fifty Tarletons.:mad:

Give the British Army in 1775 a hundred Fergusons, and they can raise a Loyalist Army capable of standing up to any Patriot force other than Washington's own. Make ALL officers in the British Army in America Fergusons, and military resistance will be crushed.:mad:

Britain didn't have any allies at this point in our timeline, so not sure how much difference it makes. That was why the Revolutionary War was so harmful to them. In this scenario, a Russian-British alliance might even be more likely.

Catherine the Great is ruler of Russia and she led the League of Neutrality. Butterflies aren't making her a British ally. Especially as its been such an enormous goal of Britain to make sure the Russians can never achieve a free open year round large warm water port.

There is one additional issue, which is this complaint in the Declaration of Independence:

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

That's one inflammatory issue taken off the table. Although it probably doesn't make too much difference.

Delete "foreign mercenaries" and insert "native savages", and its back on the table.

If the Revolution goes ahead, Britain is either resorting to conscription or is pretty screwed.

They could I suppose empty every last prison in the UK and make for draconian courts issuing sentences for trumpery (fake) charges that allow judges to order (healthy male) defendants to "serve in the army or die" for the crime of parking in the handicapped zone:p Or something.

I think they probably adopt a defensive position with respect to Canada early if they can't implement a draft.

Agreed. Once Canada is saved it stays saved. And forget Johnny Burgoyne's expedition, meaning Saratoga is butterflied! Good news for London, even though they won't know it.

I still find it struggling that those minor German states could provide 30,000 men.

Believe it. If anything, those numbers are a little on the low side. I would have thought closer to 50,000. Though over the course of the entire war, 1775-1783. Also, the German mercenaries were a sieve in terms of resources. Expensive to equip and maintain, unreliable, prone to desertion, and insured to elevate Patriot activity wherever they marched. Machiavelli warned that mercs were very much a two-sided sword. As usual, he was right.

I don't remember the source:eek:, but IIRC the theory was that the main reason Howe didn't "march out and destroy Washington's army once and for all", which logically he could have, was because of all the mercenaries he had under his command.

Clinton advocated that the whole of the Colonies would have to be occupied by British garrisons to insure that the rebel scourge was and would remain completely wiped out (this was in his own memoirs).

But apparently Howe was concerned that the deeper his army advanced into the American interior, the more spread out his army would become, and the greater the opportunity for German mercenaries (many of them dragooned off the streets and highways of Germany, with no interest in being soldiers) to desert.;)

ITTL, that won't be a problem. OTOH, Howe won't have the forces to engage in deep penetrating campaigns either. No conquest of Philadelphia.

I'm also not sure the Revolution goes ahead on schedule. George III's humbling in the Seven Years' War might make him a less belligerent man in terms of interfering politically. That could have ramifications.

Mad King George

How would Long Island go?

OTL

they still win long island. no quebec expedition. the british try a loyalist based "enclave strategy of holding nyc the loer hudson and northeast new jersey. france jumps in. france will probably focuss on the seaboard and cairribean but will have a st lawrence option. if british holdings around nyc are stable the british may try a second enclave based on georgia.

That means Britain has no war strategy beyond "holding on". George wanted Submission, which passive enclave strategies won't get him.

Hi. I don't know much about the American Revolution, but could Britain not having those German reinforcements make them open to negotiating a deal that keeps the colonies as part of the empire?

That would mean changing all British policies towards the 13 Colonies from 1763 onwards. Quite frankly, the British mercantile system was incapable of handling the American Colonies by 1763. Worse, after the 7YW London decided to start running the colonies directly from Westminster, after 150 years of the Colonies having been forced by benign neglect to look after their own affairs.

Essentially, once the shooting started, after the Second Continental Congress' appeal letter (of respectful moderation to use Winston Churchill's words) was dismissed out of hand by George and Parliament, and London went to DEFCON 1 against the Colonies by sending the largest possible army that they could mobilize to NYC, the die was cast. No more negotiations. The Declaration of Independence was issued even as the first British troops were landing in Long Island.

Possibly, though most Britain's would think in 1776 that 20,000 would be overkill to defeat colonists.

Absolutely. American militia performance was horrendous in the 7YW, mainly due to a total lack of training. So the British impression was understandable. What we know today as the United States Army didn't truly exist until after the winter of Valley Forge, when the Prussian Major General Steuben was able to train Washington's army up to a decent state of professionalism.

The American Tory Militias got much better preparation before becoming mobilized.

Really, continental politics could go any which way-

Most dangerous course of events for Britain would be if the Franco-Austrian-Russian alliance stays together for decades, its members don’t war on each other, they possibly all reach a deal to partition the Ottoman Empire, they promote their own industries and restrict British trade, and France uses its strong position to take over the southern Netherlands, overawe the Dutch Republic, build up its navy and start peeling back British colonies around the world.

Is that most likely?
Probably not –

Of the three, any of France, Austria or Russia will probably fall out with the others and have a war with them over the next half century.

Since the ARW goes forward, does the Wars of the French Revolution (OK! OK! You can declare Nappy "butterflied") stir the pot a bit?

I think 2 kinds of british colonies must be distinguished : the settlement colonies and the classic exploitation/control colonies.

Considering the demographic dynamics and advance, by that time nobody but the settlers themselves could oust Britain out of the core of the north american east coast, except for Territories north fringe of those colonies (Maine, Vermont, and what became British Canada).

It was not a matter of sea power but of mere demography. Just consider Portugal with Brazil or Spain with its continental american colonies because they had a critical mass of settler population nobody could challenge. Time, having been the first and only one to reach this critical mass on these territories ensured that those territories would remain culturally mainly creole portuguese, creole spanish, ... etc.

The other classic exploitation/control colonies could be lost to a rival power.

Matteo

Best analysis on this thread.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Neither the Austrians nor the Imperial Diet would abide the Comte de Provence as Elector of Hanover. The Russians wouldn't like it, either. And if you're also destroying Prussia as a power, what you're doing here is basically completely destroying Protestant power within the Empire. That's a big deal, even if we're not in the era of religious wars.

You mention the Saxon example, but that was a case of the long-time ruling dynasty converting to Catholicism. That's not at all the same as the imposition of a foreign dynasty with no connection to the place.

Perhaps more likely would just be to split it off from England -- make one of George III's brothers or younger sons the Elector and let it go its own way. But, really, the best thing for France is to keep Hanover a personal possession of George III. It's most valuable for France as a possible source of leverage against England. If you split it off, you lose that. It's not as valuable, of course, under George III as it was under his grandfather, but it's still a piece you can trade for something else you want.
 
Hanover to Saxony perhaps?

Could Britain perhaps use Polish mercenaries/maybe even try propping up Poland, or is she too long gone by this point.
 
Top