How big would war over Corsica in 1768 get?

In OTL, a weak British government decided not to intervene in the Corsica crisis, feeling it was too late to do anything. They were bitterly condemned in the British press and in parliament. One of the excoriators was a certain William Pitt.

So what happens if Pitt is still PM and the Brits send the navy to attack the French forces? How much would this spiral? The Austrians and the Spanish are still in alliance with the French, and as much as they dislike French expansion, they both wanted to maintain the French alliance and a direct attack by the British clearly invokes the terms. Austria's presence likely involves the Prussians coming in on Austria's side. So with the exception of Russia, we have 7YW mark 2.

What are the results of this? Everyone is tired from the last war, but the French and Spanish navies are in a bad way and the have not had chance to build them up again. Meanwhile the Brits have far more borrowing capacity then the French. Do France and Spain lose even more colonies? Which ones? What happens in central Europe?
 
In OTL, a weak British government decided not to intervene in the Corsica crisis, feeling it was too late to do anything. They were bitterly condemned in the British press and in parliament. One of the excoriators was a certain William Pitt.

So what happens if Pitt is still PM and the Brits send the navy to attack the French forces? How much would this spiral? The Austrians and the Spanish are still in alliance with the French, and as much as they dislike French expansion, they both wanted to maintain the French alliance and a direct attack by the British clearly invokes the terms. Austria's presence likely involves the Prussians coming in on Austria's side. So with the exception of Russia, we have 7YW mark 2.

What are the results of this? Everyone is tired from the last war, but the French and Spanish navies are in a bad way and the have not had chance to build them up again. Meanwhile the Brits have far more borrowing capacity then the French. Do France and Spain lose even more colonies? Which ones? What happens in central Europe?

What the Brits SHOULD have done is recognize Corsican independence and get a token force in to support them. Then it would be up to France to be the aggressor.

Waiting until after France invaded is too late. Britain really didn't want a war at this point - but tried too hard to avoid one, leading to France and Spain assuming they could get away with more than they could. A quiet intervention preempting the French would have served Britain's short AND long term interests far more than what happened iOTL.

Waiting until after the French have started invading, which is what I gather you're talking about, would have been a really stupid move on the part of the Brits.
 
The British could have prevented significant French reinforcements from reaching Corsica much as the later did in the Revolutionary Wars. If Spain decided to intervene Britain's position is more precarious but Spain is unlikely to support Genoa selling Corsica to France in any event.

My take on it is that Britain could probably have bluffed her way to Corsican independence given that for Spain it would have been the least worst option.

Difficult to see the war spinning out of control into a 7 years war part two if only for the fact that Spain and France were severely trounced only 4-5 years previously.

If it did then the North America front with Louisiana might be interesting given that there was a Creole revolt against Spanish authority going on at the same time.
 
The British could have prevented significant French reinforcements from reaching Corsica much as the later did in the Revolutionary Wars. If Spain decided to intervene Britain's position is more precarious but Spain is unlikely to support Genoa selling Corsica to France in any event.

My take on it is that Britain could probably have bluffed her way to Corsican independence given that for Spain it would have been the least worst option.

Difficult to see the war spinning out of control into a 7 years war part two if only for the fact that Spain and France were severely trounced only 4-5 years previously.

If it did then the North America front with Louisiana might be interesting given that there was a Creole revolt against Spanish authority going on at the same time.

I don't know. I don't see a reason why Spain would oppose Fa rench conquest of Corsica. The thrones were related, though distantly by now.

Corsica, in the end, was very close to the French coast and France was plainly willing to do what it took to conquer, as you can see by the large army it spent. Britain, on the other hand, could not hope to offer more than a few thousand soldiers. That would not be enough to affect the local war. Only a massive British fleet would do this and they couldn't muster one on short notice. Britain was also in bad financial straights, fighting a recession, and those pesky colonists were stirring up trouble. The young King was having political problems at home due to his inexperience.

I don't see Britain willing to start a war over Corsica. It didn't affect the balance of power much (Britain still had Minorca and Gibraltar, etc). Giving France a military base a few dozen miles away from their own coast doesn't give them a strategic advantage they didn't have before. It also ate up French resources fighting a rebellion for years.

Maybe if Britain decided to blockade early and halted the initial invasion....maybe. yes, Britain would prefer that France not have it but it didn't affect the balance of power and they just fought a 7 year war. No one wanted another war over Corsica.

In the end, Corsica just meant a whole lot more to France than Britain.
 
I don't know. I don't see a reason why Spain would oppose Fa rench conquest of Corsica. The thrones were related, though distantly by now.

Corsica, in the end, was very close to the French coast and France was plainly willing to do what it took to conquer, as you can see by the large army it spent. Britain, on the other hand, could not hope to offer more than a few thousand soldiers. That would not be enough to affect the local war. Only a massive British fleet would do this and they couldn't muster one on short notice. Britain was also in bad financial straights, fighting a recession, and those pesky colonists were stirring up trouble. The young King was having political problems at home due to his inexperience.

I don't see Britain willing to start a war over Corsica. It didn't affect the balance of power much (Britain still had Minorca and Gibraltar, etc). Giving France a military base a few dozen miles away from their own coast doesn't give them a strategic advantage they didn't have before. It also ate up French resources fighting a rebellion for years.

Maybe if Britain decided to blockade early and halted the initial invasion....maybe. yes, Britain would prefer that France not have it but it didn't affect the balance of power and they just fought a 7 year war. No one wanted another war over Corsica.

In the end, Corsica just meant a whole lot more to France than Britain.

But the fact is there was a serious faction in the British parliament that wanted to confront the French over it, including Pitt, who was a highly effective war prime minister. I don't think we can doubt that if the Pittites were in power, confrontation would have happened. And this was after the French purchase and invasion of course.

I agree with others that Britain is going to struggle to stop the conquest, although it could perhaps cut the supply lines to mainland France via a naval blockade. So the most likely British option if it wants to keep face is to attack the French elsewhere. The French sugar islands are the obvious option. At that point, it's sure to activate the chains of the alliance system.
 
But the fact is there was a serious faction in the British parliament that wanted to confront the French over it, including Pitt, who was a highly effective war prime minister. I don't think we can doubt that if the Pittites were in power, confrontation would have happened. And this was after the French purchase and invasion of course.

I agree with others that Britain is going to struggle to stop the conquest, although it could perhaps cut the supply lines to mainland France via a naval blockade. So the most likely British option if it wants to keep face is to attack the French elsewhere. The French sugar islands are the obvious option. At that point, it's sure to activate the chains of the alliance system.

I would not count on Pitt for anything. Though remembered as a great wartime Minister, Pitt spent virtually the entirety of his career as a rabble-rouser in Parliament, whom mainly complained about the incumbent ministers. He only spent a few years in actual power. By the 1760's, he was largely a spent force. He would also need the King's support for a war and I'm not sure if George III would be interested in this particular cause only a few years past the date when he forced the previous war to a close.

It is easy for an opposition party to complain about a foreign policy embarrassment, it would be another to spend another generation of treasure reopening a war that only ended four or five years earlier.
 
I would not count on Pitt for anything. Though remembered as a great wartime Minister, Pitt spent virtually the entirety of his career as a rabble-rouser in Parliament, whom mainly complained about the incumbent ministers. He only spent a few years in actual power. By the 1760's, he was largely a spent force. He would also need the King's support for a war and I'm not sure if George III would be interested in this particular cause only a few years past the date when he forced the previous war to a close.

It is easy for an opposition party to complain about a foreign policy embarrassment, it would be another to spend another generation of treasure reopening a war that only ended four or five years earlier.

I have done extensive research on Pitt for my own timeline, and this is a caricature of the man. He was massively responsible for taking charge of the Seven Years War and turning a weak war effort into one of the most convincing successes in British history. The period of 1759-1761 was probably his most successful. His resignation in 1761 was over whether a pre-emptive attack on Spain should be started before Spain was in a better position to join the war, while his opponents thought Spain might not enter the war. Ultimately, Pitt turned out to be right. His standing in parliament only collapsed in 1766, after he accepted a peerage and moved to the Lords.

It's also ridiculous to paint him as an opposition rabble-rouser, after his resignation. He was arguing to increase the subsidy to Prussia in parliament after his resignation, something which was very popular in the country, which wanted to tone down the German war. After the fact, the lack of British resolve over Corsica was a big part in contributing to them looking like a weak power in the European system and put off countries like Russia from forming an alliance with them. He himself felt the end of the 7YW was only an "armed peace" that would shortly re-open.
 
If the war spirals out to involve Austria and Prussia on opposing sides, there's that whole Polish powderkeg waiting for a spark next door.
IOTL this led to the Russo-Turkish war of 1769 and the First Partition in 1772.
Here, the dynamic would be different, although it is very likely that Poland still comes out reduced.
 
I have done extensive research on Pitt for my own timeline, and this is a caricature of the man. He was massively responsible for taking charge of the Seven Years War and turning a weak war effort into one of the most convincing successes in British history. The period of 1759-1761 was probably his most successful. His resignation in 1761 was over whether a pre-emptive attack on Spain should be started before Spain was in a better position to join the war, while his opponents thought Spain might not enter the war. Ultimately, Pitt turned out to be right. His standing in parliament only collapsed in 1766, after he accepted a peerage and moved to the Lords.

It's also ridiculous to paint him as an opposition rabble-rouser, after his resignation. He was arguing to increase the subsidy to Prussia in parliament after his resignation, something which was very popular in the country, which wanted to tone down the German war. After the fact, the lack of British resolve over Corsica was a big part in contributing to them looking like a weak power in the European system and put off countries like Russia from forming an alliance with them. He himself felt the end of the 7YW was only an "armed peace" that would shortly re-open.

Pitt was in power in 1766-1768. He was the Prime Minister. He was entrusted with power by George III after the failure of Grenville and Rockingham. He was entrusted with the power to form a cabinet entirely of his own selection. Among his selections were Charles Townshend.

What did he do? He became Lord Chatham, he allowed Townshend to enact the Townshend Acts, and of course, he did nothing on Corsica.

So what will Pitt or Lord Chatham do if he is in power during the Corsican takeover by France?

What he did in OTL. Nothing.
 
Pitt was in power in 1766-1768. He was the Prime Minister. He was entrusted with power by George III after the failure of Grenville and Rockingham. He was entrusted with the power to form a cabinet entirely of his own selection. Among his selections were Charles Townshend.

What did he do? He became Lord Chatham, he allowed Townshend to enact the Townshend Acts, and of course, he did nothing on Corsica.

So what will Pitt or Lord Chatham do if he is in power during the Corsican takeover by France?

What he did in OTL. Nothing.

He resigned from office on the grounds of ill health just a few weeks before the French invasion of Corsica, so of course he didn't do anything. When his health recovered and he was back in parliament he bitterly opposed the lack of action.
 
I don't know. I don't see a reason why Spain would oppose Fa rench conquest of Corsica. The thrones were related, though distantly by now.

Corsica, in the end, was very close to the French coast and France was plainly willing to do what it took to conquer, as you can see by the large army it spent. Britain, on the other hand, could not hope to offer more than a few thousand soldiers. That would not be enough to affect the local war. Only a massive British fleet would do this and they couldn't muster one on short notice. Britain was also in bad financial straights, fighting a recession, and those pesky colonists were stirring up trouble. The young King was having political problems at home due to his inexperience.

I don't see Britain willing to start a war over Corsica. It didn't affect the balance of power much (Britain still had Minorca and Gibraltar, etc). Giving France a military base a few dozen miles away from their own coast doesn't give them a strategic advantage they didn't have before. It also ate up French resources fighting a rebellion for years.

Maybe if Britain decided to blockade early and halted the initial invasion....maybe. yes, Britain would prefer that France not have it but it didn't affect the balance of power and they just fought a 7 year war. No one wanted another war over Corsica.

In the end, Corsica just meant a whole lot more to France than Britain.

Actually Corsica didn't mean that much to France - except as a prestige acquisition to offset the humiliation of the 7 years war.

So it's really a question of does France want the risk of 7 years war pt 2 if Britain stands up for the Corsicans. There is no nationalism at play here - Corsica in 1768 is as French as Piedmont, it's a pure land grab.

Remember that Britain did stand off France and Spain in the matter of the Falkland Islands in 1770, partly as a consequence of its perceived weakness over Corsica. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine a different decision over Corsica than OTL.
 
Actually Corsica didn't mean that much to France - except as a prestige acquisition to offset the humiliation of the 7 years war.

So it's really a question of does France want the risk of 7 years war pt 2 if Britain stands up for the Corsicans. There is no nationalism at play here - Corsica in 1768 is as French as Piedmont, it's a pure land grab.

Remember that Britain did stand off France and Spain in the matter of the Falkland Islands in 1770, partly as a consequence of its perceived weakness over Corsica. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine a different decision over Corsica than OTL.

From what I can see, while it may not be in France's national interest here, it is certainly in Choiseul's personal interest. Apparently it was very much seen as his scheme in the French government, and his rivals were hoping it would fail because it would cause his fall.
 
Top