I thought you had a thread about this and might want to weigh in on this discussion.
Hah, I just assumed this was my thread from the other month.
I thought you had a thread about this and might want to weigh in on this discussion.
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.
Well, the William (Orange) and Mary invasion hardly could be considered how a real enemy invasion at least to be compared with the other William.Another William did it too.
I agree, for the most part. Spain really wanted Gibraltar back, and failed to get it.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
- 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.
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.Maybe a British Revolution, instead of a French Revolution? That would be interesting.
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.
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 scuttledOf course, all of the above leaves unanswered the fundamental question: what would be the Allied goal in the case of success?
The argument for no strong federal government was mainly political and practical, not financial.
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.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.
The British would not roll over and die with the loss of London. They would retake it and then negotiate.