Britain never gets or loses Gibralter

Is there a possiblity that Britain might not have got Gibralta in the early 18th century or as part of the deal wiht 'legitimate' soveriegns after the Napoleonic and revolutionary wars in europe could regain it.

If so does that have any impact on WW1?

How much of a disaster would that be for Britain in WW2 (I am assuming Spain stays neutral but that the Nazis get to have observers of entries and exits of the Med?
 
the strait of gibraltar was seen as one of the five passages vital to controlling world trade. if they didn't own gib, they'd likely make a second attempt at holding tangiers and this time invest heavily in its defense. not controlling access to the med would drastically affect British foreign policy and their fortunes and history so likely we wouldn't see a world war 2 as we know it. Britain could have ceased to exist as a major state, some country could have dominated Europe enough to prevent future large-scale wars...Britain could even do far better in this scenario. ww2 is just too far away to be a sensible comparison.
 
At the very least the British keep Majorca. And lobby to keep Northern Morocco out of Spanish hands/hegemony. Maybe the Brits take it for themselves.
 
the strait of gibraltar was seen as one of the five passages vital to controlling world trade. if they didn't own gib, they'd likely make a second attempt at holding tangiers and this time invest heavily in its defense. not controlling access to the med would drastically affect British foreign policy and their fortunes and history so likely we wouldn't see a world war 2 as we know it. Britain could have ceased to exist as a major state, some country could have dominated Europe enough to prevent future large-scale wars...Britain could even do far better in this scenario. ww2 is just too far away to be a sensible comparison.

How important was it before the Suez canal was built? Presumably the Cape would be much more valued for the 18th and much of the 19th century?

Incidentally, what are your five? Gibraltar, the Cape, Suez, Central America, Malacca?
 
A lot of people at the time wanted to keep Menorca instead of Gibraltar. Menorca seemed to have a lot more to recommend it, considering its position.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
British Morocco?

Maybe, but probably only as a response to repeated Moroccan assaults on Tangiers. I don't think the British would be so interested as the French/Spanish/Italians later proved at to take a core province in North Africa, and I think they would consider owning a large swathe of Morocco as nothing more than a trouble-maker. Owning a single city and fortifying it to the teeth is a far cheaper, easier and strategically-sound solution.

How important was it before the Suez canal was built? Presumably the Cape would be much more valued for the 18th and much of the 19th century?

More important, yes, but you're looking at it wrong. Gibraltar was insignificant in monitoring the round-Africa traffic. Well OK it was significant, but the British owned numerous bases for that purpose. Gibraltar was there to bottle up the entrance to the Med an act as a base for controlling all the European traffic in and out, which mainly headed for northern Europe and less so to America. By the time the Suez canal was built, the era of boarding ships, tariffing trade and monitoring everything was past and Gibraltar was more useful as a military base. The value of the Cape is somewhat unimportant as the Cape was relevant for a different trade route entirely.

Incidentally, what are your five? Gibraltar, the Cape, Suez, Central America, Malacca?

The 5 "Keys" to World Trade were:Capetown, Gibraltar, Alexandria, Singapore, and Dover.

This. Thanks Earl, I had actually forgotten Alexandria.

A lot of people at the time wanted to keep Menorca instead of Gibraltar. Menorca seemed to have a lot more to recommend it, considering its position.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

It did, but it had its faults too. It was far less defensible, as evidenced by the way it basically fell at the first attempt, and the important thing is it couldn't bottle up the entrance to the Mediterranean if necessary. Gibraltar had the capacity to literally psyche the French and Spanish into simply not being able to move fleets through the Strait unless they were willing to use half their fleet to do it. With Menorca, it was always possible to just take a chance and hope to get there before the British fleet showed up. I think the important thing is that at the end of the day, the UK kept Gibraltar and handed back Menorca.
 
I'd love to hear people's views on whether it was actually possible for Gibraltar to fall. It seems like there was some pretty impressive sieges of it in our timeline, but the place seems impenetrable.
 
I'd love to hear people's views on whether it was actually possible for Gibraltar to fall. It seems like there was some pretty impressive sieges of it in our timeline, but the place seems impenetrable.

I think the physical impregnability of Gibraltar was relevant before the 20th century; then Britain would often be at war with powers that held the land approaches but their defenses were adequate and the British could rely on resupplying the fortress by sea, so attacks were futile.

I think nowadays the real defense of Gibraltar is geopolitical strategy rather than the Rock being absolutely untakable in theory.

My impression is that with modern (ie 20th century) artillery and control of all the approaches by land, with the artillery and aircraft also suppressing attempts to relieve Gibraltar by air or sea, at least the place could be besieged and eventually starved out. I don't know how much a constant battering by heavy artillery and bombing could actually crack the inner defenses.

So what you need is a Spain willing to pay the price of British hostility (and whatever allies Britain may have) which would be severe, as the British would cut off Spanish trade--by the WWII era Spain was dependent on imported petroleum for instance. And either Spain herself or some ally has a top-rate artillery and air force capability.

Evidently Franco was not willing to suffer the costs of alienating the Allies that much--it may have figured in his decisions that if he offered Hitler the chance to neutralize the Rock, it would be Hitler and not him left in de facto control of the strong point, whatever it might say on paper. But probably most important would be how much Spain would suffer with its access to world trade cut off.

So if British power were generally reduced to the point they couldn't control shipping to Spain, and Britain had no allies who could or would, then Spain trying to take it back by force might become a possibility.

Or, any power that could actually conquer Spain might then push on to take Gibraltar, if they didn't care about starting a war with Britain. Presumably they'd already be in one, and if they tried invading Spain the British or their allies would offer to help Spain fight off said invaders, so they'd likely be at war with Britain anyway by the time they got to Gibraltar.
 
Is there a possiblity that Britain might not have got Gibraltar in the early 18th century
The taking of Gibraltar is one of the Great Stories for British Marines, like the - Hall of Montezuma - or - The Shores of Tripoli - for Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

The Suggestion that the British Marines could Fail to scale the Unscalable Cliff,and take the Untakeable Fortress, can get you serious bodily harm.
 
Top