Scenario: GBR stays out of the continental Seven Year's War/Third Silesian War

From what I understand the Anglo-Prussian alliance was an attempt to balance out the Austro-French alliance. Now suppose Maria Theresia, opposed to an alliance with France, secures French neutrality (& maybe subsidies) in the event of war between Austria & Prussia as opposed to direct French involvement.
MT already has an alliance with Russia & Saxony, let's say via Russia she secures Sweden as a coalition partner as well. Now how would this affect the continental Seven Years War if FTG still proceeds with his pre-emptive strike on Saxony? Would GBR be compelled to assist Prussia or would she pull a "it's not a defensive war" as she did with Austria in the War of Polish Succession (1733) and not get involved in the continental European war? Thanks!!
 
It's tough given that Britain and France were already at war in North America by the time the war broke out in Europe. Britain had already expelled the Acadians. France was naturally going to strike at Hanover and Minorca.
 
I was thinking that from the get go the war's would run parallel to each other, as I understood things Prussia was obligated by a treaty to defend Hannover. Austria would just have French subsidies and possibly collude with France in the sense that Prussia had to assist Britatin in defending Hannover which would serve as a diversion for Prussian forces.

If Sweden was a a coalition member from the get go, they might've built a more substantial force in Swedish Pomerania and been more prepared as opposed to striking halfheartedly as they did per OTL. FTG might have a tougher time defending against the coalition + France and may chose to focus on his own campaign. This might prompt Britain to dissolve the alliance and drop subsidies for Prussia or bring another party into the war on her side.

If the anti-Prussian coalition (sans France, not directly part of the coalition) can win their goals before the death of Empress Elisabeth, Britain and Prussia may still go on to win that separate parallel war.
 
It's tough given that Britain and France were already at war in North America by the time the war broke out in Europe. Britain had already expelled the Acadians. France was naturally going to strike at Hanover and Minorca.

I don't agree that France and Britain "HAD" to fight in Europe in the 7 Years War. For instnace, France wisely refrained from attacking Hanover in the American war of independence to focus on the foreign war. Britain probably could have bourne the expense better than France.

Note that the British/Prussian "alliance" of 1756 was only a few years old at the time of the 7 Years War's commencement. Previously, Austria was Britain's ally of choice as Prussia had eyes to conquer Hanover.

The Diplomatic Revolution of the early 1750's turned the political establishment on its head.

Given that Prussia effectively started the war with an unwarrented sneak attack on Saxony without any British consultation, I don't see any compelling reason why Britain would choose to intervene on Prussia's behalf if France was willing to keep out of Germany.

The two wars, Franco-British in America and Austro-Russian-Prussian in Europe, might have occured in tandem with not much to do with one another. It was quite common for France and Britain (or Spain and Britain) to fight in the new world while at peace in Europe.

In fact, after most of Hanover was overrun in 1757, France appeared more than willing to give it back to George II after Prussia was finished.

I suspect that this was the best time for a Franco-British peace. Nothing had been settled in North America and France would have signed off on a status queue anti-bellum in Europe if they received the same in America.

Instead, George II revoked the Convention of Klosterhaven (I think it was something like that) and brought his army back into the war, probably illegally given the diplomatic niceties of the time.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree that France and Britain "HAD" to fight in Europe in the 7 Years War. For instnace, France wisely refrained from attacking Hanover in the American war of independence to focus on the foreign war. Britain probably could have bourne the expense better than France.

Note that the British/Prussian "alliance" of 1756 was only a few years old at the time of the 7 Years War's commencement. Previously, Austria was Britain's ally of choice as Prussia had eyes to conquer Hanover.

The Diplomatic Revolution of the early 1750's turned the political establishment on its head.

Given that Prussia effectively started the war with an unwarrented sneak attack on Saxony without any British consultation, I don't see any compelling reason why Britain would choose to intervene on Prussia's behalf if France was willing to keep out of Germany.

The two wars, Franco-British in America and Austro-Russian-Prussian in Europe, might have occured in tandem with not much to do with one another. It was quite common for France and Britain (or Spain and Britain) to fight in the new world while at peace in Europe.

In fact, after most of Hanover was overrun in 1757, France appeared more than willing to give it back to George II after Prussia was finished.

I suspect that this was the best time for a Franco-British peace. Nothing had been settled in North America and France would have signed off on a status queue anti-bellum in Europe if they received the same in America.

Instead, George II revoked the Convention of Klosterhaven (I think it was something like that) and brought his army back into the war, probably illegally given the diplomatic niceties of the time.

Though we are uncertain, could this revocation of the convention have been grounds for an Imperial Ban on George II? I assume even if it were it wouldn't go so well relations wise with Austria and the states of the HRE but would the context of FTG pre-emptive strike on Saxony be enough to for the Imperial estates to be less worried? Thanks for the input.
 
I don't agree that France and Britain "HAD" to fight in Europe in the 7 Years War. For instnace, France wisely refrained from attacking Hanover in the American war of independence to focus on the foreign war. Britain probably could have bourne the expense better than France.

The two wars, Franco-British in America and Austro-Russian-Prussian in Europe, might have occured in tandem with not much to do with one another. It was quite common for France and Britain (or Spain and Britain) to fight in the new world while at peace in Europe.

But why would France, given its relative naval weakness in the 1750s, want to do that? Its military strength was on land, so it was natural that it would strike at nearby British possessions and use them as bargaining chips in case of overseas defeats. New France was a headache for the French monarchy in times of war, being vulnerable due to its low population. I could see Britain wanting to avoid a European war but not France.

As for the Revolutionary War, by that time France had divested itself of its North American territory, which changed its strategic position considerably. Also, France by this time had considerably strengthened its navy.
 
I don't agree that France and Britain "HAD" to fight in Europe in the 7 Years War. For instnace, France wisely refrained from attacking Hanover in the American war of independence to focus on the foreign war. Britain probably could have bourne the expense better than France.

I don't know. Prior to the Napoleonic Wars (and arguably not even then), the only time France faced Britain alone was in the Revolution. That didn't work out too well for Britain...
 
Though we are uncertain, could this revocation of the convention have been grounds for an Imperial Ban on George II? I assume even if it were it wouldn't go so well relations wise with Austria and the states of the HRE but would the context of FTG pre-emptive strike on Saxony be enough to for the Imperial estates to be less worried? Thanks for the input.

Interesting, I didn't know there was an Imperial Ban. I suspect they were probably more common than most of us realize. Every time a German prince went up against the Empire, they were probably dinged for it.
 
But why would France, given its relative naval weakness in the 1750s, want to do that? Its military strength was on land, so it was natural that it would strike at nearby British possessions and use them as bargaining chips in case of overseas defeats. New France was a headache for the French monarchy in times of war, being vulnerable due to its low population. I could see Britain wanting to avoid a European war but not France.

As for the Revolutionary War, by that time France had divested itself of its North American territory, which changed its strategic position considerably. Also, France by this time had considerably strengthened its navy.

Remember that, even without a land war, Britain would still have to expend and utilize resources to protect Hanover just on the fear of a French invasion. However, France had no such fear of a British/Hanoverian invasion and could send everything they had against Britain itself and their colonies.

Also recall that, while Britain was the strongest Navy, the Atlantic was hardly blockaded. France routinely managed to get supplies and reinforcements through to Quebec. If France had shipped only a quarter of those soldiers utilized in the German war to Canada, there is no chance whatsoever that Britain would conquer it. Another five thousand troops in Nova Scotia and ten thousand on the mainland would provide a more than adequate shield.

Most people recognized at this time that, in quantity and quality, Britain had the strongest navy, no one expected the massive victories of 1759 on. France and Spain were viewed at least as contenders. This proved to a be one of the unexpected high water marks of British Naval History (along with the Napoleonic Wars and the period from 1870 to 1900) where they truly did rule the waves.
 
Top