In the early 1600s, England and France were considering an alliance against the Habsburgs. However, this ultimately failed, and by 1624, when Cardinal Richelieu came to power, French politics proceeded away from the English, and tensions between the two countries rose until the Anglo-French War broke out in 1627. In that War, English victory came about, leading to the antebellum status quo in Europe and the New World. However, what if the anti-Habsburg alliance between English and France were successful in its creation? I'm personally not sure about the Americas but in Europe, I can see the Anglo-Portuguese alliance being altered as well as the future Franco-Spanish alliance potentially being butterflied. I ask because I'm writing a TL that has greater potential for an Anglo-French alliance against the Habsburg coming into being than OTL and I surprisingly couldn't find much about the Anglo-French War (1627), even though I can see it being butterflied away completely or at least delayed? So, what are your guys' thoughts about this?
How Could An Anglo-French Alliance In The 1600s Impact Europe and The New World?
- Thread starter PGSBHurricane
- Start date
The first question is how long such an alliance could last- a short anti-Hapsburg alliance falling apart quickly would have very different results from a long-lasting alliance covering a wider variety of priorities.
In Canada, no Anglo-French war in 1627 means the Kirkes don't seize Quebec City (they had to give it back afterwards) and no Scottish invasion of Acadia (meaning probably no province named Nova Scotia). In Acadia, in particular, this might be beneficial to the French position since their defeats- especially at Cap Sable- seriously undermined the previously thriving civilian colony and encouraged the French to pursue the strategy of focusing on a single, highly fortified position (Louisbourg) which was not helpful for the colonies long-term success. Also, a period of peace would probably encourage more trade between Acadia and Boston, which was already significant at this time (Boston mercenaries even fought in the Acadian Civil War). That too might help Acadia's economic growth. Of course, if the alliance doesn't last, a more thriving but less militarized Acadian is simply going to suffer even worse when the British decide to launch the Acadian Expulsion.
The really interesting changes are probably in the Caribbean, where both France and England will be looking to expand at the expense of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Expect lots of drama- pirates, politics and profit!- but predicting who would end up in control of what island, let alone the long term consequences, is very difficult given how unsettled the region was at the time.
In Canada, no Anglo-French war in 1627 means the Kirkes don't seize Quebec City (they had to give it back afterwards) and no Scottish invasion of Acadia (meaning probably no province named Nova Scotia). In Acadia, in particular, this might be beneficial to the French position since their defeats- especially at Cap Sable- seriously undermined the previously thriving civilian colony and encouraged the French to pursue the strategy of focusing on a single, highly fortified position (Louisbourg) which was not helpful for the colonies long-term success. Also, a period of peace would probably encourage more trade between Acadia and Boston, which was already significant at this time (Boston mercenaries even fought in the Acadian Civil War). That too might help Acadia's economic growth. Of course, if the alliance doesn't last, a more thriving but less militarized Acadian is simply going to suffer even worse when the British decide to launch the Acadian Expulsion.
The really interesting changes are probably in the Caribbean, where both France and England will be looking to expand at the expense of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Expect lots of drama- pirates, politics and profit!- but predicting who would end up in control of what island, let alone the long term consequences, is very difficult given how unsettled the region was at the time.
All of this seems quite interesting. The Americas may or may not be different and I would agree with you there. What I was really asking though is what would be the mechanics for it to be implemented in the first place and how Europe itself would be changed through this.
European history's not really my field. That said, some speculations:
If France and Britain have an anti-Hapsburg alliance, presumably at some point they intend to fight some Hapsburgs. Given the geography I can't see a major English land intervention into Germany during the Thirty Year's War, so presumably they intend to operate primarily navally, targeting Spain rather than Austria, and possibly focusing to some extent on colonial gains rather than direct attacks- at least going by the subsequent English history of fighting wars with Spain. So far, so good.
I don't see a high likelihood of France trying to go for the kill and conquer or vassalize Spain. Maybe make efforts to meddle with the succession, or aid Portugal in achieving independence, but total warfare is both out of character for the era and of questionable value to the French, whose ambitions lie primarily in the Low Countries. But a truly successful Anglo-Franco-Hapsburg war would probably make the future history of the Netherlands and Belgium unrecognizable, with the French incentivized to claim territory to their north but probably preferring a Spanish-ruled Holland to an independent protestant one (unless they believe it weak enough to be vassalized), the British incentivized to try to turn the Dutch rebels into a new Protestant state under their influence, and the Dutch having their own interests- and the will and military power to pursue them.
In England domestically, this presumably helps shore up Charles I's position somewhat, especially if there are any successes to boast about. On the other hand, wars are rarely cheap, even with some level of French support- and I very much doubt that the French will invest much in England, when subsidies to Sweden and Denmark to threaten Austria offer a much better per-dollar investment.
Taxation and religion were the two critical factors that drove England to civil war; here taxation will presumably have to increase to pay for the ongoing campaigns and religious strife will increase, if anything, after an alliance with the hated- and very Catholic- French. Does this speed up the outbreak of the ECW? Possibly, but if Charles can spin his actions as a defense of Protestantism in Germany then he might be able to split some of his opponents away from each other. Historically, though, Charles was hardly a master of propaganda and political maneuvering.
If France and Britain have an anti-Hapsburg alliance, presumably at some point they intend to fight some Hapsburgs. Given the geography I can't see a major English land intervention into Germany during the Thirty Year's War, so presumably they intend to operate primarily navally, targeting Spain rather than Austria, and possibly focusing to some extent on colonial gains rather than direct attacks- at least going by the subsequent English history of fighting wars with Spain. So far, so good.
I don't see a high likelihood of France trying to go for the kill and conquer or vassalize Spain. Maybe make efforts to meddle with the succession, or aid Portugal in achieving independence, but total warfare is both out of character for the era and of questionable value to the French, whose ambitions lie primarily in the Low Countries. But a truly successful Anglo-Franco-Hapsburg war would probably make the future history of the Netherlands and Belgium unrecognizable, with the French incentivized to claim territory to their north but probably preferring a Spanish-ruled Holland to an independent protestant one (unless they believe it weak enough to be vassalized), the British incentivized to try to turn the Dutch rebels into a new Protestant state under their influence, and the Dutch having their own interests- and the will and military power to pursue them.
In England domestically, this presumably helps shore up Charles I's position somewhat, especially if there are any successes to boast about. On the other hand, wars are rarely cheap, even with some level of French support- and I very much doubt that the French will invest much in England, when subsidies to Sweden and Denmark to threaten Austria offer a much better per-dollar investment.
Taxation and religion were the two critical factors that drove England to civil war; here taxation will presumably have to increase to pay for the ongoing campaigns and religious strife will increase, if anything, after an alliance with the hated- and very Catholic- French. Does this speed up the outbreak of the ECW? Possibly, but if Charles can spin his actions as a defense of Protestantism in Germany then he might be able to split some of his opponents away from each other. Historically, though, Charles was hardly a master of propaganda and political maneuvering.
Uring the Dutch revolt France and the Dutch rebels effectively were allied and the French certainly prefered an independent Netherlands over a Habsburg Netherlands, especialy in the later years of the Dutch revolt. Basicly the French attacked the Spanish Netherlands from the south, while the Dutch from the north and the Spanish were pretty angry when the Dutch made peace with Spain in Münster (Westphalia) leaving the French to fight the Spanish alone.
European history isn't my strong suit either so touche my friend. If an alliance is cemented in 1624, I would presume it's temporary and I would agree that they intend to fight at some point. It's just a matter of when. Not sure what the immediate butterfly effects of a 1624 alliance would be though.
Huh? The English failed to capture the île de Ré or relieve La Rochelle.
Last edited:
I was talking about in Quebec where the English did capture it. With that, I had thought the English had won the war. My apologies for overlooking Europe.
Québec at that time had about 20 settlers. That was a sideshow to the main theatre of war, the south-west coast of France where the English tried in vain to support the Huguenot rebellion against the French crown.
Last edited:
True, but i do think this was more out of short term pragmatic reasons. For the long term, the marriage policy of Frederick Hendrik with the full aproval of the General Estates was aimed at England and Germany (Brandenburg).
Of course it was. Both were protestant states, while France was catholic. And I think a continued Franco-Dutch alliance would have been a theoretical possibility, even if one was catholic and one protestant. Alliances were (even are) based on pragmatism.
I'm honestly not sure what the butterflies in Europe from this alliance would be at this point. I guess it does depend on how long this lasts but I could be wrong.