Could the British have taken Puerto Rico instead of Jamaica

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
And could this have ended up swapping the economic, demographic and political history of these two similarly sized islands?
 
Yes, absolutely. It is harder, because Puerto Rico was better defended. But still very possible.

In fact, a longer Seven Years War and Britain could end up with both.
 
In fact, a longer Seven Years War and Britain could end up with both.
One problem with a longer war is money – everyone's finances were stretched. IIRC Britain was in the best position compared to others but it was still pretty bad. I've wondered in the past about a longer Seven–here Eight–Years' War, mainly with regards to North America, so I'd be interested.
 
One problem with a longer war is money – everyone's finances were stretched. IIRC Britain was in the best position compared to others but it was still pretty bad. I've wondered in the past about a longer Seven–here Eight–Years' War, mainly with regards to North America, so I'd be interested.

The war could easily have gone longer. George III's accession was what drove it. He and his advisors were eager to end the war and gave generous terms to do so. You are right that Britain was worried about their finances, but Pitt wanted an extra year and to push a hard peace. That hard peace push might add an extra year beyond that. As we can see from the subsequent 30 years in OTL, Britain actually has a lot more capacity to absorb debt than was believed, while France very much does not. At this point in the war, France and Spain have lost their navies so Britain is in a very good position.
 
... but Pitt wanted an extra year and to push a hard peace. That hard peace push might add an extra year beyond that.
Oh yeah it was definitely Pitt losing his position which caused the peace. My general idea was to give him an extra year so that when the Treaty of Paris rolls around in 1764 news of Britain's capture of Manilla has had time to reach Europe plus the details of the Treaty of Fontainebleau to leak out. France cedes the eastern half of French Louisiana as in our timeline but Spain also has to cede the western half they had received from France for the return of the Philippines, giving Britain the whole of the Mississippi River drainage basin.
 
Oh yeah it was definitely Pitt losing his position which caused the peace. My general idea was to give him an extra year so that when the Treaty of Paris rolls around in 1764 news of Britain's capture of Manilla has had time to reach Europe plus the details of the Treaty of Fontainebleau to leak out. France cedes the eastern half of French Louisiana as in our timeline but Spain also has to cede the western half they had received from France for the return of the Philippines, giving Britain the whole of the Mississippi River drainage basin.

I don't think London would take that swap. The Philippines is prime real estate for Britain's strategic aims in Asia, and the East India Company lobby is powerful in parliament. Western Louisiana is not needed in the foreseeable future, is difficult to administer, and the Brits know it will be difficult to defend for Spain longer term anyway. Plus, Spain is going to have to give a lot to get Cuba back if they aren't dealing with the absurdly generous offer of unsettled Florida for it.
 
France was desperate for peace. Spain wanted to keep going. Britain was mixed, with some wanting to keep going and some saying 'we won, lets call it a day'. Britain's North American forces were freed up to sweep through the Caribbean and while finances were tough, they had the capacity to keep going. It certainly looks like Britain was going to be able to continue taking more and more.

But, there's an expression: quit while you're ahead. I wouldn't bet on it, but it is possible that continuing on could have encountered unexpected setbacks which puts Spain/France in better negotiating position. Or it's possible that making a harsh peace puts Britain in bad situations afterwards - difficulties in occupation, for example - which weakens them for the next global flareup, which OTL was American Revolution.
 
France was desperate for peace. Spain wanted to keep going. Britain was mixed, with some wanting to keep going and some saying 'we won, lets call it a day'. Britain's North American forces were freed up to sweep through the Caribbean and while finances were tough, they had the capacity to keep going. It certainly looks like Britain was going to be able to continue taking more and more.

But, there's an expression: quit while you're ahead. I wouldn't bet on it, but it is possible that continuing on could have encountered unexpected setbacks which puts Spain/France in better negotiating position. Or it's possible that making a harsh peace puts Britain in bad situations afterwards - difficulties in occupation, for example - which weakens them for the next global flareup, which OTL was American Revolution.

What sort of setbacks can you envision? Not rushing to peace means less likelihood of selling out Prussia and not losing a key ally on the mainland. Any sugar island gains would likely pay for themselves pretty quickly. And France and Spain would be much more hurt financially than Britain would be, given their terrible fiscal systems.
 
What sort of setbacks can you envision? Not rushing to peace means less likelihood of selling out Prussia and not losing a key ally on the mainland. Any sugar island gains would likely pay for themselves pretty quickly. And France and Spain would be much more hurt financially than Britain would be, given their terrible fiscal systems.
well, if I can envision the setback, so could the experts, and they wouldn't be unexpected!:p
Like I said, I wouldn't bet on it, but maybe unexpected loss of battle, a bad wind mucks up the fleet, or leads to loss in battle. Maybe the locals make occupation untenable.

There was a thread not too long ago debating the effects of taking the sugar islands. On the surface, it seems a no brainer positive, but there are economic perils lurking below the surface. Reasons for returning them went beyond being a nice neighbor. a short term dip in the market coinciding with increased costs in extending the war/occupation, having unintended consequences, perhaps. Or maybe being in more dire straights causes France/Spain to undergo fiscal revolution, putting them on better footing for the future. Or maybe they crash and burn, leading to unforeseen circumstances.
 
well, if I can envision the setback, so could the experts, and they wouldn't be unexpected!:p
Like I said, I wouldn't bet on it, but maybe unexpected loss of battle, a bad wind mucks up the fleet, or leads to loss in battle. Maybe the locals make occupation untenable.

There was a thread not too long ago debating the effects of taking the sugar islands. On the surface, it seems a no brainer positive, but there are economic perils lurking below the surface. Reasons for returning them went beyond being a nice neighbor. a short term dip in the market coinciding with increased costs in extending the war/occupation, having unintended consequences, perhaps. Or maybe being in more dire straights causes France/Spain to undergo fiscal revolution, putting them on better footing for the future. Or maybe they crash and burn, leading to unforeseen circumstances.

I have often thought the combination of more war humiliation and financial ruin could have sparked a French Revolution 15 years earlier. I wonder whether the intellectual currents would have been different as a result. I think probably not. One possibility is that the parlements would have been looked to rather than the estates general.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Jamaica was originally taken by Cromwell's Commonwealth about a century before the 7 years war by the way.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Cromwell expedition, which actually was intended to seize Hispaniola anyway and ended up attacking Jamaica as a secondary target. What if the secondary target was Puerto Rico instead, and it was seized in the Anglo-Spanish War? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1654–1660)

Alternatively, what if Britain was successful in seizing the primary objective, Hispaniola? I'm not sure if the French had any plantation colonies on that island by 1654-1660. I don't think they did.
 
Top