Successful Armada of 1779

I agree on the biggest blow being symbolic if a disembarkment occurs on British soil... I don't think there's been any other occurrence since a certain William did so... And he was named the Conqueror for a reason... So even if no actual damage is done... Now all powers know that reaching the British Isles is achievable

This could butterfly away into Churchill's We Shall Never Surrender !
 
I agree on the biggest blow being symbolic if a disembarkment occurs on British soil... I don't think there's been any other occurrence since a certain William did so... And he was named the Conqueror for a reason... So even if no actual damage is done... Now all powers know that reaching the British Isles is achievable

This could butterfly away into Churchill's We Shall Never Surrender !

Another William did it too.
 
I think it's necessary to clarify and remember that, at least, Spain, fought this war against Britain with objectives clear as the means and the strategy to achieve it and thanks to the skillful governor B. Galvez.
Because Spain achieve to get almost all of its war objectives, that were conquered, were conserved and the peace treaty only recognized them. So their interests were not seen too much, harmed, as it could have been France, by the possible Anglo-Colonial agreement in the pace treaty.

Gálvez carried out a great military campaign, defeating to the British forces at Fort Bute, Baton Rouge, and Natchez in 1779.
The Battle of Baton Rouge, per example, was a Spanish victory which main consequence was to freed the lower Mississippi Valley of British forces and relieved the threat to then capital of Spanish Louisiana, New Orleans. Gálvez (the Spanish commandant) recaptured Mobile from the British...
The campaign ended with the reconquest of Pensacola, the British capital of West Florida. After this, in 1782, the Spanish forces captured, the British naval base in Nassau in the Bahamas.
Besides that, I think that the successful Spanish campaign against the British forces even that was having a key importance in favor of the thirteen colonies' cause, usually its forgotten and/or underestimated.
Also, in consequence, usually its forgotten, too, the consequences that would have the lack of Spain (share in the financing to the colonials) participation in the war and/or a British victory that beside of given to the Royal Navy additional ports.
Surely would have given additional ports and freed the British forces in Florida.... but more importantly, its that would have given to Britain the chance to attack and would be able to get reforced ad supplied from a land base in Florida: the southern american colonies and mainly the control of the Mississippi (lower) Valley or at least the effective neutralization of New Orleans.
Because if Britain would have achieved these goals, then I think that the whole course of the thirteen colonies' independence war would be affected and more than probably that would be affected.
I agree, for the most part. Spain really wanted Gibraltar back, and failed to get it.
One area they messed up was getting the wording right, failing to spell out the northern border of Florida, which the US was able to successfully claim. Spain also claimed everything south and west of the Tennessee River, including Natchez region, but failed to get that in writing as well, and the US was able to push them out when a decade or so later Britain backed the US, causing Spain to forfeit those claims. Ultimately, probably didn't make any difference as Spain was in no position to develop the region and turned Louisiana over to France, who then backstabbed Spain by selling it to USA.
 
I agree, for the most part. Spain really wanted Gibraltar back, and failed to get it.
One area they messed up was getting the wording right, failing to spell out the northern border of Florida, which the US was able to successfully claim. Spain also claimed everything south and west of the Tennessee River, including Natchez region, but failed to get that in writing as well, and the US was able to push them out when a decade or so later Britain backed the US, causing Spain to forfeit those claims. Ultimately, probably didn't make any difference as Spain was in no position to develop the region and turned Louisiana over to France, who then backstabbed Spain by selling it to USA

Well, true but I said almost all and of course only could be conserved (some of the places) those that were taken.
But for this scenario and in general, I think, that must be taken into account that the next decade's events that were unforeseen for the contemporary e.g. French Revolution & The Napoleonic wars invasion and years of war against the Napoleonic occupation of Spain nor inept and greedy royals and the 'Valido' ('royal favorite') that will rule Spain...
Events that were key and that would probably be butterflied.
 
An earlier and more splendid conclusion of the ARW possibly means no (or lesser) American financial crisis in 1779, which would have massive implications on the Constitutional Convention, as one of the main arguments for the creation of a strong federal government, that the states could not and were not willing to pay their debts and dividends by themselves, crumbles beforehand.
OTOH, we could see a larger USA from the get-go. Canada could be partitioned between France and the USA, with the Ontario Peninsula going to the latter.
 
The argument for no strong federal government was mainly political and practical, not financial.

If the French and Spanish crush Britain at home and force it to beg for piece, the young and weak US, whose militia army’s main goal during the ARW was not being defeated, will not obtain as much as OTL (and certainly not the Ontario peninsula) but less.

Because although the French valued the sugar islands more than Canada, they nonetheless were not totally disinterested in getting Canada back.

This is pure math. If the French and Spanish win crushingly, they will get much more than if, as OTL, they win but a close victory. The OTL close victory was the US’ best hand in the negotiation : they could play Britain against France and France against Britain.

So to sum-up with all this :
- the French and the Spanish take several key British Caribbean islands,
- the French take Canada back but also set the frontier between the US and restored French North America on the Ohio river and Mississippi River.
- the Spanish get Florida, Belize, Gibraltar and Minorca back,
- the French force a kind of north-south Anglo-French Yalta in India and are able to turn their ailing East Indies Company in a huge and very profitable one,
- Ireland becomes an independent kingdom.


Other side effects :

- The London financial place faces the most terrible crash it ever went through. The British treasury probably goes bankrupt in the short run. And Britain is going to face strong radical civil unrest for a generation.

- there is no more British lock on France peacefully annexing the Austrian Netherlands if the French can find a satisfying offset for the Austrians (be it giving the Irish crown to a Habsburg prince or in Bavaria).

- there is not going to be a French Revolution as OTL because France will go through a long time of prosperity and financial ease.
 
- The London financial place faces the most terrible crash it ever went through. The British treasury probably goes bankrupt in the short run. And Britain is going to face strong radical civil unrest for a generation.

- there is not going to be a French Revolution as OTL because France will go through a long time of prosperity and financial ease.

Maybe a British Revolution, instead of a French Revolution? That would be interesting.
 
Maybe a British Revolution, instead of a French Revolution? That would be interesting.
That would be very interesting. I’d imagine after the near total destruction of Great Britain, there would be wide discontent and the people would loose confidence in all the government and demand a Republic of their own. If not soon after 1779 than around 1789/1790.
 
1779 Armada Threads are almost the same: The UK rolls over and France and Spain win just like that.

There are 130,000 English militia to deal with and the Royal Government would withdraw from the Colonies to fight the French and Spanish.

"In Nov 1778 the establishment was set at 121,000 men, of whom 24,000 were foreigners, along with 40,000 embodied militia. This was raised the next year to 104,000 men on the British establishment, 23,000 on the Irish establishment, 25,000 foreigners (the “Hessians”), and 42,000 embodied militia, for a total force of about 194,000 men" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_the_American_Revolutionary_War

It is not clear from the article how many of these troops were on the British soil and how well they had been trained (it seems that a noticeable portion were the newly-raised troops). However, nothing about militia having 130K. It is also not quite clear why the Hessians were needed if well over 100K "native" troops had been really (and not just on paper) available.

Confusingly, in Wiki article on 1779 Armada puts the British forces as 20,000 troops and 39,000 militia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armada_of_1779#Gathering_the_forces) so go figure which numbers to consider.

OTOH, it seems that Armada of 1779 had been carrying only between 30,000 and 40,000 soldiers.

But, just for the fun of it, what if we assume that between 30 and 40K professional soldiers had landed in the Southern England and are facing the British force which is half of that number? We can probably safely disregard militia as a battlefield force: AFAIK, experience of the American Revolution is not quite encouraging it that regard (outside "Patriot" movie :)), the Southern England of the late XVIII was not exactly American wilderness and not too many locals had been hunting for food (wasn't the pouching a crime with a capital punishment attached?).

"Success of Armada" means that this force captured, as was intended, a naval base in Portsmouth. And then what? Strictly speaking, with Armada's success what would prevent the French from landing more troops as a 2nd echelon both to strengthen the initial force and to provide an additional psychological factor? The distance is much shorter than one from the Colonies.

How about the following: while the naval crews are working on destruction of the wharves, warehouses etc., the troops are marching in-land with a simple and explicit goal of doing as much damage as possible? Not spreading the forces for occupying the cities, just marching and breaking everything on the way in expectation that a lot of a damage to the commerce and private properties would force Brits to sue for peace.

Where would they go?

One of the potential goals would be the Chatham Dockyard. This would be mostly a military (or rather naval) target because its destruction would seriously damaging the British abilities to build up the Royal Navy (probably mostly in a short-term if the Dutch Wars can be used as a meaningful precedent). The Chatham Lines of Defense providing a land-side protection already had been built: 9-metre-wide (30 ft) earthwork ditch and a 3-metre (9.8 ft) parapet. In 1779 the defenses were somewhere between those of 1770 and 1812 (see below) with 2 redoubts (but not forts, yet) already on the Southern and Northern ends of the defensive line. Each of 2 redoubts had 14 42-pounders, 10 9-pounders, 8 6-pounders and 2 4-pounder guns. Definitely, if provided with enough troops, not something you can simply walk into but OTOH not exactly a Vauban fortress requiring a systematic siege. No river-side defenses in expectation that there would be plenty of naval artillery.

If the goal is just a destruction and the British navy is incapacitated prior to the successful landing then some version of Medway Raid could be played with an advantage of having a land support (which de Ruyter did not have) and the same tide problems he managed to overcome. IIRC, the brandskugels were not yet used during Ruyter's times but they were already well-known in the late XVIII so, if used both by naval and land artillery, a lot of burning could be done without storming the land fortifications. But, even with a chance to do a lot of damage to the British ship-building capacity, this would not be necessarily a strategic target taking of which may force the British government to start negotiations.
220px-ChathamDefences_1770%282%29.svg.png


220px-ChathamDefences_1812%282%29.svg.png


Or the invaders could march directly on London (40 - 50 miles; few days march) with the same explicit purpose to do a lot of damage to the city (and especially the City :)). What scope of a damage (economic and political) would force the British government to negotiate?

Of course, all of the above leaves unanswered the fundamental question: what would be the Allied goal in the case of success? It seems that in OTL the whole enterprise had a limited strategic goal of diverting the British naval and military assets from other war theaters. But what if the French government was ...er... "thinking globally" (fat chance with Louis XVI) and had energetic military commanders capable of going beyond the trivial operations? What would the government of alt-Louis XVI demand as the peace conditions (not crazy enough to make peace impossible) in the scenario when the French are burning the Southern England and the British government is forced to ask for peace talks? Just independence of the American colonies (such degree of unselfishness would be unrealistic), and return of some Caribbean islands or something much greater?
 
Last edited:
Of course, all of the above leaves unanswered the fundamental question: what would be the Allied goal in the case of success?
Wouldn't sacking London and Kent be enough? A proper scorched earth would be a major setback. I mean, beyond the psychological impact (thinking of potential Irish uprising too), it could cause major disruptions to the food supply of London, and it gets even worse if ships found in ports are scuttled
 

Kaze

Banned
The British would not roll over and die with the loss of London. They would retake it and then negotiate.
The United States would be let go to their own devices.
Ireland would be likely be let go their own devices - most likely under a Stuart.
As for Scotland - there would be no rising of the Clans, they were already broken by that point. Scotland would remain part of the Union, but a watched part of the union.
 
Does anyone think afterwards the people would be so discontent that they would form a Republic or anything of the sort? May we see an English Napoleon?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The argument for no strong federal government was mainly political and practical, not financial.

Bit of a tangent, but likely still relevant since it's a result of the POD: the argument no strong federal government may have been mainly political, but the argument for introducing a strong federal government was ultimately financial (or rather: directly caused by financial matters). The direct cause for even having a Consititutional Convention (instead of far less drastically revising the Articles of Confederation, which already had support and would otherwise no doubt have happened) was Shays' Rebellion. Which was caused by... angry ARW veterans not getting paid due to financial mismanagement and huge debts in (chiefly) Massachusetts. A decidedly shorter war means, just as @GauchoBadger wrote, no American financial crisis in 1779, dramatically reduced debts, no drastic currency devaluation, far more trust in the economy and the currency, and also far fewer unpaid vets.

In short, nothing like Shays' Rebellion occurs, and all the "the states can't hande these things, we need a federal government to handle it"-arguments are never even there to be used as supports for pushing tighter federalism. As such, GauchoBadger is just plain right. A much shorter ARW near-certainly means the Articles just get revised to deal with the most obvious defects, but nothing like the OTL Constitution gets drafted-- and the USA will continue to exist as a confederation. (This may change later on, naturally, but it would likely be a more gradual process of the Articles being amended bit by bit over the decades/centuries).
 
But, just for the fun of it, what if we assume that between 30 and 40K professional soldiers had landed in the Southern England and are facing the British force which is half of that number? We can probably safely disregard militia as a battlefield force: AFAIK, experience of the American Revolution is not quite encouraging it that regard (outside "Patriot" movie :)), the Southern England of the late XVIII was not exactly American wilderness and not too many locals had been hunting for food (wasn't the pouching a crime with a capital punishment attached?).
Not so sure about that. The one French force to land in Britain OTL during the Revolutionary Wars surrendered without a fight to the Pembrokeshire County Militia. The French commander reckoned that he and his troops could have defeated the Pembrokeshire County Militia but his problem was that hordes of armed locals were swarming in from all over Wales to help repel the invaders and there was just no point in eliminating the only force in the vicinity disciplined enough to accept their inevitable eventual surrender without killing them out of hand thereafter. Now there was a morale issue there, the French thought that the locals would arise in support of the Revolution rather than to exterminate the French but this is an era where every country squire has a gun room and a dozen weapons and another half dozen armed gamekeepers and every yeoman or tenant farmer has weapons -as had some doctors and clergy. Britain had problems paying for professional standing armies but in a "We have been invaded, all hand to repel boarders" situation probably about 8% (and that is a conservative estimate leaving out smugglers and poachers- and the Preventatives who were also armed for that matter) of Britains eight million odd population could have presented with some sort of firearm over and above the Army and Militia. Say about 640,000 across the country, at least 200,000 of whom would be in the South East to begin with. And you could raise another 15,000 men by arming the London apprentices -and most of the gunsmiths are in London. Now these aren't disciplined troops but there is a core of disciplined troops to stiffen and encourage them.
 
As for Ireland, it is really unlikely it goes to a Stuart. By the Armada, no one recognised them and the papacy only put up with them because the sole remaining Stuarts were Charlie the Drunk, and a Cardinal; Henry Benedict Stuart the Cardinal-Duke of York.
I think it would be wisest for the Bourbons to give Ireland to Charles Phillipe of Artois, as he was already 22, had two sons, and was absolutist, and also heavily Catholic, enough to elicit support from the Irish Catholics and possibly recognition from Rome
 
Not so sure about that. The one French force to land in Britain OTL during the Revolutionary Wars surrendered without a fight to the Pembrokeshire County Militia. The French commander reckoned that he and his troops could have defeated the Pembrokeshire County Militia but his problem was that hordes of armed locals were swarming in from all over Wales to help repel the invaders and there was just no point in eliminating the only force in the vicinity disciplined enough to accept their inevitable eventual surrender without killing them out of hand thereafter. Now there was a morale issue there, the French thought that the locals would arise in support of the Revolution rather than to exterminate the French but this is an era where every country squire has a gun room and a dozen weapons and another half dozen armed gamekeepers and every yeoman or tenant farmer has weapons -as had some doctors and clergy. Britain had problems paying for professional standing armies but in a "We have been invaded, all hand to repel boarders" situation probably about 8% (and that is a conservative estimate leaving out smugglers and poachers- and the Preventatives who were also armed for that matter) of Britains eight million odd population could have presented with some sort of firearm over and above the Army and Militia. Say about 640,000 across the country, at least 200,000 of whom would be in the South East to begin with. And you could raise another 15,000 men by arming the London apprentices -and most of the gunsmiths are in London. Now these aren't disciplined troops but there is a core of disciplined troops to stiffen and encourage them.

That's all very nice and interesting (and the numbers are quite absurd) but the fact remains that at least in the XVIII the armed but untrained civilians were not considered a serious fighting force, especially if confronted by a big (30 - 40K) army not suffering from the "moral factors". "Swarming around" is nice but taking into an account the distances on which aiming with the contemporary muskets was possible, its effectiveness was close to zero (as was seen during the British march to Lexington, MA).
 
The British would not roll over and die with the loss of London. They would retake it and then negotiate.

You are seemingly missing the point: the whole scenario is not about "taking" (and holding) London but about destroying it as much as possible and proceeding with destruction of the region until the Brits decide that it is too much: an idea of the effective occupation of any noticeable part of Britain with only 30 - 40K is not serious. Of course, they'd have to hold one or two ports but that's it.
 
Top