Sardinia in the Seven Years War?

Well, let's not forget the North American Theater. That was some pretty hairy stuff.

What of a combined French and Spanish (plus Austrian, Sardinian, and other cannon fodder) naval force? I think this is the stuff of the OP's timeline, no?

I just can't stand the narrative that the British were unmatched at sea throughout all of history. From the early/mid-19th century onwards, yes, undoubtedly, but before that? The British were far from invincible---the death of Nelson and almost-defeat for the Brits at Trafalgar is testament to that---and it's insulting to say they 'ruled the waves' (except, perhaps, in the collective imagination of Europe).

I think it's more accurate to say that maintaining a navy is freaking expensive, and the Brits were the only ones who could afford to do so during peacetime (since the decline of Spain, anyway).

I didn't say that Britain "ruled the waves" during the SYW. The French navy was not equal match to the RN in the war, but was able to challenge the British seriously. Indeed, seaborne invasion was considered a serious possibility at least up to Trafalgar by the British. The point is that the British had the leisure to plan accordingly, namely they had not to worry about a large navy and a large army at same time, which was France's problem (and to a point, Spain's problem too). OTOH, Prussia could focus all its energies on the army (and did so astonishingly well).
A joint Spanish-French naval force could match the British (as it did in the ARW, I believe). However, Austria and Sardinia would be able to contribute importantly to such a force.

As for the North American theatre, I am under the impression that it is important mostly in hindsight, and that both players saw it as a sideshow at the time. Of course, British naval superiority, while not uncontested, was still critical in British success in that sector.

By the way, had the Franco-Austro-Russian coalition stomped Prussia as planned, France would have been free to focus on the seas; in that case, balance of naval forces and, therefore, the situation in North America would have been less favorable to the British I think.
 
I didn't say that Britain "ruled the waves" during the SYW. The French navy was not equal match to the RN in the war, but was able to challenge the British seriously. Indeed, seaborne invasion was considered a serious possibility at least up to Trafalgar by the British. The point is that the British had the leisure to plan accordingly, namely they had not to worry about a large navy and a large army at same time, which was France's problem (and to a point, Spain's problem too). OTOH, Prussia could focus all its energies on the army (and did so astonishingly well).
A joint Spanish-French naval force could match the British (as it did in the ARW, I believe). However, Austria and Sardinia would be able to contribute importantly to such a force.

As for the North American theatre, I am under the impression that it is important mostly in hindsight, and that both players saw it as a sideshow at the time. Of course, British naval superiority, while not uncontested, was still critical in British success in that sector.

By the way, had the Franco-Austro-Russian coalition stomped Prussia as planned, France would have been free to focus on the seas; in that case, balance of naval forces and, therefore, the situation in North America would have been less favorable to the British I think.

Austria + Sardinia -would- be able to contribute? Just checking because I felt like I was going out on a limb there.

Well awesome, just have Prussia lose. I love timelines that kill off Prussia (even though I'm a Teuto-/Prussophile), or at least hinder its progress.

We've established that Sardinia's 'best chance' is siding with France+Austria, and that a combined allied navy is the best bet of besting the Brits. Also, stomp the Prussians.

How does Sardinia profit from joining an ultimately victorious French-Austrian coalition?
 
Austria + Sardinia -would- be able to contribute? Just checking because I felt like I was going out on a limb there.

Well awesome, just have Prussia lose. I love timelines that kill off Prussia (even though I'm a Teuto-/Prussophile), or at least hinder its progress.

We've established that Sardinia's 'best chance' is siding with France+Austria, and that a combined allied navy is the best bet of besting the Brits. Also, stomp the Prussians.

How does Sardinia profit from joining an ultimately victorious French-Austrian coalition?

Difficult to say, but the most likely gain for them is probably Piacenza (not Parma, which will go to Austria). Maybe some horsetrading regarding the border with Switzerland, since Neuchatel was under Prussian overlordship?
 
Why not have Poland ruled by the Sobieskis be the one to sieze Silesia from Austria and Baltic Prussia from Brandenburg, Sobieski wanted to do this but has not made his plans into action.
 
Difficult to say, but the most likely gain for them is probably Piacenza (not Parma, which will go to Austria). Maybe some horsetrading regarding the border with Switzerland, since Neuchatel was under Prussian overlordship?

IMHO the question remains why? It would mean a worse deal for Austria, since it would be on their expense; and Sardinia-Savoy isn't really needed for any campaign in Italy either.

The idea of some horsetrading with Switzerland, might work, but that probably results in Sardinia-Savoy feeling that they got too little.
 
IMHO the question remains why? It would mean a worse deal for Austria, since it would be on their expense; and Sardinia-Savoy isn't really needed for any campaign in Italy either.

The idea of some horsetrading with Switzerland, might work, but that probably results in Sardinia-Savoy feeling that they got too little.

Devil is in the details. Austria did not get Silesia IOTL after all. If they think that Sardinian presence could tip the balance (not very likely in general), they'd go for it, albeit grudgingly.
 
Top