Anglo-French War over Corsica (1768) or Falklands (1770), consequences for American Colonies?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Two disputes between the 7 Years War and the American Revolutionary War stand out as potential occasions for British war with France (and in at least one case, Spain) - the French Annexation of Corsica and the Anglo-Spanish dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas.

The American Revolution had not started in earnest by 1768 or 1770, but, even since the end of the 7 Years War, the imposition of the Stamp Act and the related Stamp Act Congress, there had been *a lot* of tension under the surface.

What does a British war against France and possibly Spain before 1772 do to British-Colonial relations. Corsica, in particular, seems a dispute of no immediate consequence to Anglo-Americans. Neither do the Falklands/Malvinas, although, at least that is an Atlantic War, and war with Spain offers at least some prospect of territorial gains at the expense of Spain in New Orleans or Cuba.

Getting involved in another great power war, without any continental allies seems to put Britain in a less than comfortable position. On Corsica, they have Paoli, but I don't think any continental power was interested in fighting France over Corsica. In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas, no other European had a stake in taking on France or Spain at this time, especially for a distant British interest.

Your thoughts?

In the 1770 variant, what are the active theaters of war?


A few logical ones that come to mind are the Malvinas, the Balearics and Gibraltar, the English Channel, the Caribbean, manila and possibly the Mississippi mouth near New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Natchez mobile and Pensacola.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Consequences of Corsican War of 1768-


What are the potential French initiatives?


Especially since there’s no reason to expect continental allies for Britain, what naval/colonial actions do French undertake against Britain, besides trying to retain or recapture Corsica.-

a. invade Ireland? England? Hanover? Would passage to Hanover be simple, or possible without causing other continental states to side against Spain?

b. invade Caribbean islands?

c. action in India?

d. Additional action made possible if they convince the Spanish to join (Gibraltar/Minorca?)

e. Falklands/Malvinas?

Can any of the above succeed?


Potential British initiatives?


a. Can the British find any allies besides the Corsicans?

b. Invade/occupy French Caribbean, St. Pierre and Miquelon?

c. Pick off Indian and African trading posts?

d. French Guiana?

e. Do they try to tax the Americans as in OTL?

f. Do the Americans resist, even in wartime?

g. Are they pacified with a share of the Caribbean loot?

h. Do the Americans see the war as not their fight?

i Does Britain go light on taxing the colonies to avoid trouble?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The 1770- Consequences of a Franco-Spanish alliance war against Britain over the Malvinas/Falklands:

Spanish initiatives:
a. winning the Malvinas
b. winning Gibraltar
c. reclaiming Florida
d. reclaiming the Bahamas or Jamaica or Trinidad
e. securing claim to Oregon

French initiatives:
a. invade Ireland? England? Hanover? Would passage to Hanover be simple, or possible without causing b. other continental states to side against Spain?
c. invade Caribbean islands?
d. action in India?

British initiatives:
a. win Malvinas/Falklands
b. take over Spanish New Orleans
c. take over Spanish California
d. take over Cuba
e. take over Darien


f. Invade/occupy French Caribbean, St. Pierre and Miquelon?
g. Pick off Indian and African trading posts?
h. French Guiana?
i. Do they try to tax the Americans as in OTL?
j. Do the Americans resist, even in wartime?
k. Are they pacified with a share of the Caribbean loot?
l. Do the Americans see the war as not their fight?
m. Does Britain go light on taxing the colonies to avoid trouble?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OTL's war saw the Bourbon powers as close to naval parity with Britain as they would ever be, in the years 1778-1782.

How would the Bourbon-British naval comparison look at an earlier date, like 1770 or 1768?
 
A Corsican War goes badly for the French. The Spanish opposed the annexation so it would not be an ally, and the French Navy is still decimated from the 7YW. It would also be seen in the British Empire, including the colonies, as Britain standing up for Corsican liberty against French tyranny, which obviously has repercussion for the rabble rousers trying to frame them the other way round a couple years later.

A Falklands War is a better option for the Bourbons as they are at least united. They also have two more years of naval rebuilding, although are still a long way off British parity, so is likely a loss. This war is likely to have the Bourbons as the aggressor against Britain directly, which would provoke a surge of British patriotic feeling in the colonies. 1770 is still early enough the major rupture with the colonies has not happened so the common colonist would instinctively side with the British interest.

In both situations the Brits will have a renewed interest in coming to accommodation with the colonists. The hardliner mentality will be focused on giving the French a lesson rather than unruly colonies. Either the dispute will be satisfactorily resolved, or put off 15-20 years while tensions rise up again.
 
For the record, George III didn't care about Hannover, which is why the French didn't bother invading during the ARW. It didn't give them any leverage.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
A Corsican War goes badly for the French. The Spanish opposed the annexation so it would not be an ally, and the French Navy is still decimated from the 7YW. It would also be seen in the British Empire, including the colonies, as Britain standing up for Corsican liberty against French tyranny, which obviously has repercussion for the rabble rousers trying to frame them the other way round a couple years later.

A Falklands War is a better option for the Bourbons as they are at least united. They also have two more years of naval rebuilding, although are still a long way off British parity, so is likely a loss. This war is likely to have the Bourbons as the aggressor against Britain directly, which would provoke a surge of British patriotic feeling in the colonies. 1770 is still early enough the major rupture with the colonies has not happened so the common colonist would instinctively side with the British interest.

In both situations the Brits will have a renewed interest in coming to accommodation with the colonists. The hardliner mentality will be focused on giving the French a lesson rather than unruly colonies. Either the dispute will be satisfactorily resolved, or put off 15-20 years while tensions rise up again.

Very interesting - it's clear you view either scenario as a rally around the flag moment for the Colonists - what do you see as the territorial consequences of British victory in either case?
 
Very interesting - it's clear you view either scenario as a rally around the flag moment for the Colonists - what do you see as the territorial consequences of British victory in either case?

Perhaps counter intuitively, probably more gains for the Falklands war. The Corsican intervention would lead to the French quickly abandoning the attempt. The Republic would be restored, under a British guarantee, or Corsica would be sold to a third minor power.

A Falklands War would likely blow up into a full scale war. Britain would have her hands full at first, but as long as there are no unlucky major defeats at sea early, British supremacy would win out over the longer run. Targeted territorial gains would be focused on the Carribean, New Orleans, African ports and the River Plate. The EIC would target Manila again. The lenient peace approach of the 7YW would likely be abandoned in favour of the traditional "one territory back for an equivalent one kept", so the extent of gains depends on the cumulative success of individual attacks. One gain which is likely certain is St Pierre and Miquelon, which caused a major split in the British govt last time round. That will be insisted on and majorly impair French naval capacity in future
 
Hmm, so River Plate is still more of a target than any of Oregon country or California.

For sure. Britain didn't really have much of a presence in the Pacific until the 19th Century. Oregon would have to be attacked over land, which would be a hell of a way to march an army and would not have been considered valuable anyway. California would have to be attacked via the sea. Given the Brits didn't have any ports in the Western American coast it just doesn't work. In fact the plan for River Plate attacks in OTL was to capture Buenos Aires and Montevideo, then use them as bases to march over the Andes to capture a place in what is now Chile to build a Pacific presence that could threaten Peru. Even that was a ludicrous scheme - I don't think they realised how tough an Andean crossing would be.
 
Top