And could this have ended up swapping the economic, demographic and political history of these two similarly sized islands?
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.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.
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.... 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.
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.
well, if I can envision the setback, so could the experts, and they wouldn't be unexpected!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!
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.