Corsican Crisis Leads to War

Would a tougher stance by Britain regarding Corsica have led to war with France in 1768? And what would that war look like? I've read that the French were surprised that the British didn't push harder over Corsica, but whether it follows that the French were prepared to go to war is another question. My feeling is that it would lead to world war, but I'd be interested to see other opinions. And feel free to send me to an existing thread if it exists; I didn't find one.

Here's my thinking: Louis XV was sick of war and prevented war between France/Spain and Britain over the Falklands in 1770, and then he fired Choiseul because of it. However, I'm not sure Louis could have resisted war over something so close to France, especially if French troops are being killed by British-supported Corsicans and supply lines are cut by British frigates. So Choiseul probably gets his war and things get out of control from Loius.

Now you've got France and Spain fighting Britain. Prussia and Russia support Britain. Choiseul gets the Ottomans to fight Russia, and Austria moves against Prussia. The Netherlands would stay out unless there's some pro-French faction at the time. (The Netherlands also has to want to be destroyed, but that never stopped them OTL.) Sweden might even join the fray - I think they were pro-French at the time.

However it turns out, everyone sends a lot of money to the bottom of the ocean and brings Armageddon to France that much closer.
 
Sweden might even join the fray - I think they were pro-French at the time.
At the time, Sweden was governed by the Cap Party, who generally speaking were the more peace-liking party in the Riksdag (they were also generally the less pro-French and more Russia-friendly party).
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Why the hell would France go to war just 5 years after losing the last one, especially against the guys she lost to?:confused:
 
I think almost certain there's no war. France isnt going to go to war over a colony Genoa cant control.

Imo.

That was my thinking at first. But Choiseul had a long term plan of reducing British hegemony, and he was willing to go to war in 1770 to support Spain over the Falklands. When you throw in the prospect of a British protectorate in Corsica, for which the French had a valid claim, I think things would get out of hand pretty quickly.

French troops land to fight Corsican resistance that are supported by the British, get cut off by the British fleet, the French fleet sails out to help... I think Loius XV would have his hands tied if he tried to stop war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, the French went to war in 1778

Why the hell would France go to war just 5 years after losing the last one, especially against the guys she lost to?:confused:

Granted, that's a decade after the 1768 scenario, and the strategic situation had changed significantly, but still - they weren't averse to taking advantage of Britain's strategic situation.

Which raises a question - if another Anglo-French war breaks out in 1768, do leaders in the American colonies see an opportunity? Can they demand policy and governmental changes they could not, realistically, prior to 1763, as the quid pro quo for supporting the British against the French yet again?

Best,
 
Last edited:
Why the hell would France go to war just 5 years after losing the last one, especially against the guys she lost to?:confused:

You don't think Britain threatening to set up a client state in Corsica would do it? I would view that as intolerable. I know it's a quick turnaround, but Europe was a freaking tinderbox at the time and France would have some pretty serious revanchism. And 2 years later Spain and Choiseul were willing to fight in OTL. You just need for blows to start before it's too late for Louis XV to stop the madness.
 
Granted, that's a decade after the 1768 scenario, and the strategic situation had changed significantly, but still - they weren't averse to taking advantage of Britian's strategic situation.

Which raises a question - if another Anglo-French war breaks out in 1768, do leaders in the American colonies see an opportunity? Can they demand policy and governmental changes they could not, realistically, prior to 1763, as the quid pro quo for supporting the British against the French yet again?

Best,

I think they could get a deal from PM Grafton. Wikipedia says he resigned from North's cabinet in 1775 because he wanted to be more conciliatory towards the colonies. Asking for policy changes during a war looks a little like blackmail, but Grafton sounds like the kind of person to make a deal. Then it's off to Havana!
 

TFSmith121

Banned
True, but it is also almost a historical constant

Asking for policy changes during a war looks a little like blackmail, but Grafton sounds like the kind of person to make a deal. Then it's off to Havana!

True, but it is also almost a historical constant.

In the US, black male suffrage after 1865 and women's suffrage after 1918 both come to mind.

There are earlier examples as well in English and British political history; the Magna Carta, for example.

Best,
 
Top