The unsuccessful rebellion

No - it would take France a few months to reach Madrid as per Napoleon. At which point Spain withdraws from the alliance with Britain. At best Spain loses some of its gains (Gibraltar and/or Minorca) to France, at worst Charles IV gets installed as a French puppet

Britain has NO troops to spare at all. They were hiring Hessians to fight the Americans

No, France would never have conquested Spain... It was impossible for Charlemagne and It was impossible for Napoleon... to think that Louis XVI had the power to conquest Spain in 1777 It is an assumption not based on fact.

1778 to 1808: 30 years...Well, from 1808 to 1814 the Peninsular War took place... a total War... in six years about 800.000 Imperial soldiers fought in Spain (The summit in 1810-1811: about 400.000 soldiers), exactly from October 19, 1807 to April 30, 1813: 759.753 imperial soldiers were carried to Spain. and they achieved nothing... nothing... The Spanish Hell swallowed the invaders... the country opposed to hundreds thousands soldiers from the best troops of the Empire: awesome Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard; light Voltigeurs, German, italian, Swiss, Polish infantry and cavalry...dragoons, hussars ...Gendarmes...artillery, engineers, mamluks...
And what did they win? as Clauzel wrote: "everything is lost in Spain" (Letter from Clauzel to Abbé, April, 13, 1813). If you like I can write what it was written by king Joseph, Jourdan, Massena, Marmont, Jomini, Lemière, Bigarré, Rocca, Foy...etc etc etc.

So, if It was impossible to Napoleon (and his soldiers) conquered Spain ..What basis do you say that Louis XVI would have conquered Spain in 6 months?
No, in 1777 France would never have conquered Spain...

facing the feeble Spanish Army
Have you got any proof? the "feeble" Spanish army defeated british and austrian ...in XVIII century

at worst Charles IV gets installed as a French puppet

Spanish people would never have accepted a foreing puppet in Spain...you should read Napoleon and his brother Joseph ... to see if the Spaniards tolerated a puppet or they prefered a total war against the puppet.
By the way... Napoleon also brought Hessians... and nothing changed.
 
No, France would never have conquested Spain... It was impossible for Charlemagne and It was impossible for Napoleon... to think that Louis XVI had the power to conquest Spain in 1777 It is an assumption not based on fact.

1778 to 1808: 30 years...Well, from 1808 to 1814 the Peninsular War took place... a total War... in six years about 800.000 Imperial soldiers fought in Spain (The summit in 1810-1811: about 400.000 soldiers), exactly from October 19, 1807 to April 30, 1813: 759.753 imperial soldiers were carried to Spain. and they achieved nothing... nothing... The Spanish Hell swallowed the invaders... the country opposed to hundreds thousands soldiers from the best troops of the Empire: awesome Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard; light Voltigeurs, German, italian, Swiss, Polish infantry and cavalry...dragoons, hussars ...Gendarmes...artillery, engineers, mamluks...
And what did they win? as Clauzel wrote: "everything is lost in Spain" (Letter from Clauzel to Abbé, April, 13, 1813). If you like I can write what it was written by king Joseph, Jourdan, Massena, Marmont, Jomini, Lemière, Bigarré, Rocca, Foy...etc etc etc.

So, if It was impossible to Napoleon (and his soldiers) conquered Spain ..What basis do you say that Louis XVI would have conquered Spain in 6 months?
No, in 1777 France would never have conquered Spain...

Have you got any proof? the "feeble" Spanish army defeated british and austrian ...in XVIII century



Spanish people would never have accepted a foreing puppet in Spain...you should read Napoleon and his brother Joseph ... to see if the Spaniards tolerated a puppet or they prefered a total war against the puppet.
By the way... Napoleon also brought Hessians... and nothing changed.

If you read what I posted then you would see that I specifically said that it would take a few months for France to reach Madrid at which point the French would dictate terms. At no point did I suggest he would seek to conquer Spain - why would he?

It took Napoleon from February to May 1808 to reach Madrid. He then blew any advantage he had created by not installing Ferdinand over Charles. In the similar situation in 1776, Louis could seek Charles III's abdication in favour of his son (not a "foreigner" - the comparison with Joseph is nonsense), the future Charles IV. He was a fool and would be much more amenable to French "guidance"

As for the performance of the Spanish Army - it lost the war of the Pyrenees in 1793-5 when facing a French militia. In 1808 the army was incapable of standing against the French, it had a severe shortage of weapons and horses to defend itself.

The Peninsula war wasn't won by the Spanish Army it was won in spite of the Spanish Army by the partisans, British and Portuguese. In a short sharp "cabinet" war to remove Spain from their alliance with Britian these factors wouldn't come into play.
 
I found a document that refers (indirectly) to the Spanish Anglo alliance: Letter sent by the Count of Aranda to Grimaldi (Prime Minister) from Paris on July 24, 1775. In that letter, the Count of Aranda says, American rebellion, apart from a bad example for the Spanish dominions, says the 13 colonies are a fledgling Power ... and a terrible threat for the Catholic King´s dominions...bu ignoring the view of the Count of Aranda, Grimaldi ordered to support the American Rebellion. (Grimaldi to Aranda, San Ildefonso, August 7, 1775).

The first Spanish Help to George Washington´s Continental Army was delivered at early 1776 and consisted of 2 million Pounds, 216 bronze cannons, 12.826 bombs, 51.134 bullets, 30.000 rifles with bayonet and 4.000 tents.

A Spanish-British Alliance would have been lethal for the American Rebellion... It consider the Spanish - French alliance... a historical mistake: By complying with the Bourbon Family Compact, Spain helped the American Revolution succeed and waged a war against Britain that provided Spain ephemeral gains.
However, in the long term, Spain laid the groundwork for the collapse of the Spanish Empire.
Ironically, the Spanish contribution to the American Revolution has been generally neglected by the Americans except for specialists in that field of study.


The issue was this one: On one hand, Spain, though joyful of Britain's colonial problems, was a colonial power herself; thus, to embrace the revolutionary ideas of the thirteen colonies along the Atlantic seaboard would have been totally opposed to Spanish policy and national interest.
On the other hand, to stay neutral, or even a very unlikely alliance with Britain, would have meant to break the dynastic treaty of mutual support with France, known as the Bourbon Family Compact.But a Spanish - British Alliance would have been lethal to American rebellion... because Britain and Spain might defeat France and the Rebellion in America but the Spanish honor and international credibility would be questioned.Besides the relation between London and Madrid, Madrid and London were guided by the hate.

But in this what if... the Spanish - British Alliance would have meant the end of american rebellion and world today would have been very very different...And that alliance was realistic, possible, appropriate, profitable, logical and appropriate bud didn´t happen by questions out of logic (Honor, Hate... lack of any racional logic). In 1776 London needed to Madrid and Madrid needed to London.

With the British- Spanish Alliance.. today USA don´t exist... very different little states... some of them as Canada, anothers like Mexico or Chile.. other group as New Zealand and another one as Jamaica or Haiti... no USA rol in 1939 - 1945... not French Revolution... everything would have been very very different...
But Spain did a historical mistake.. Spaind didn´t accept the British Alliance... and everybody know what happened after...
 
If you read what I posted then you would see that I specifically said that it would take a few months for France to reach Madrid at which point the French would dictate terms. At no point did I suggest he would seek to conquer Spain - why would he?

It took Napoleon from February to May 1808 to reach Madrid. He then blew any advantage he had created by not installing Ferdinand over Charles. In the similar situation in 1776, Louis could seek Charles III's abdication in favour of his son (not a "foreigner" - the comparison with Joseph is nonsense), the future Charles IV. He was a fool and would be much more amenable to French "guidance"

As for the performance of the Spanish Army - it lost the war of the Pyrenees in 1793-5 when facing a French militia. In 1808 the army was incapable of standing against the French, it had a severe shortage of weapons and horses to defend itself.

The Peninsula war wasn't won by the Spanish Army it was won in spite of the Spanish Army by the partisans, British and Portuguese. In a short sharp "cabinet" war to remove Spain from their alliance with Britian these factors wouldn't come into play.


Ok, It has been a misunderstanding... but some american specialist in War think that British - Spanish alliance ... as you well said very unlikely, would have been lethal to the rebellion ...What do you think? for a moment, Spain and Britain join an alliance to suppress the American rebellion
 
I
As for the performance of the Spanish Army - it lost the war of the Pyrenees in 1793-5 when facing a French militia. In 1808 the army was incapable of standing against the French, it had a severe shortage of weapons and horses to defend itself.
The Peninsula war wasn't won by the Spanish Army it was won in spite of the Spanish Army by the partisans, British and Portuguese. In a short sharp "cabinet" war to remove Spain from their alliance with Britian these factors wouldn't come into play.

Well, I don´t want to change the subject.. but the War of Pyrenee was lost after Austrian, British, Prussian, Italian, Dutch were defeated... and The French victory was won by absolute numerical superiority.
The Spanish Army was the first to defeat the Imperial Army (Battle of Baylen) and in 1808, the Spanish State was blown.. It was necessary to fight against invasor without State...and that army killed more french in one city (Saragossa) than the famous Prussian Army in 1806... as Thiers writes ... the French Empire was powerless to subject Spain.
 
But when you have the undivided attention of Royalist France facing the feeble Spanish Army just how is Britain going to make a difference. If they need Hessians to fight the Americans, what is left to defend England and support the Spanish

France isn't going to occupy Spain - she is just going to make sure she doesn't interfere with their operations in the ARW and scoop up any freebies going (like Minorca)

How exactly can France conduct operations in the ARW without a navy that can match Britain's or Spain's (never mind a combined British-Spanish fleet)? It was only with Spain's navy onside that France was able to intervene in the 13 Colonies.

Furthermore, crossing the Pyrenees to invade Spain would be tough without naval support. Napoleon could do so because he was a military genius who had the best army at the time. The French army at the time of the ARW was not as powerful as it later became under Napoleon.
 
I found a document that refers (indirectly) to the Spanish Anglo alliance: Letter sent by the Count of Aranda to Grimaldi (Prime Minister) from Paris on July 24, 1775. In that letter, the Count of Aranda says, American rebellion, apart from a bad example for the Spanish dominions, says the 13 colonies are a fledgling Power ... and a terrible threat for the Catholic King´s dominions...bu ignoring the view of the Count of Aranda, Grimaldi ordered to support the American Rebellion. (Grimaldi to Aranda, San Ildefonso, August 7, 1775).

I read differently. According to the Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, Spain offered to stay out of the war if Britain returned Gibraltar and Minorca. Britain refused and so, Spain joined France under severe conditions that France had no choice but accept. Here is the link

http://books.google.ca/books?id=W86...=france spain gibraltar jonathan dull&f=false
 
How exactly can France conduct operations in the ARW without a navy that can match Britain's or Spain's (never mind a combined British-Spanish fleet)? It was only with Spain's navy onside that France was able to intervene in the 13 Colonies.

Furthermore, crossing the Pyrenees to invade Spain would be tough without naval support. Napoleon could do so because he was a military genius who had the best army at the time. The French army at the time of the ARW was not as powerful as it later became under Napoleon.

France managed to land troops in Ireland in much more adverse conditions in Seven Year War and in Napoleonic Wars and Managed to ship and army to Egypt.

They would not be as effective that is for sure but would absence of most of the French mean defeat for the rebellion - not so sure.

In 1823 France strolled into Spain and re-instated Ferdinand. I see no reason why they couldn't have done the same in 1776 to replace his grandfather with his father. Supporting the English against the French would not have been a popular move in Spain for sure and would have had severe internal political repercussions for Charles III. It certianly would have been unpopular with the Army.
 
Have you got any proof? the "feeble" Spanish army defeated british and austrian ...in XVIII century

There is lots of proof about how much the Spanish army declined beginning with the Dutch Revolt (The 30 Years' War by Wilson goes into detail.)

May I ask to which conflict you speak of in the 18th century? The only one I can think of was the War of Spanish Succession in which case /France/ stalemated the war. It was a compromise, no victory for each side; and in Spain it was a civil war.
 
I read differently. According to the Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, Spain offered to stay out of the war if Britain returned Gibraltar and Minorca. Britain refused and so, Spain joined France under severe conditions that France had no choice but accept. Here is the link

Well we have two contradictory versions .. but that's not important .. The essential is that both Power could ally and for whatever reason they didn't.

And I think you agreed to me about the Spanish - British Alliance would have been deadly for the American Rebellion.

France managed to land troops in Ireland in much more adverse conditions in Seven Year War and in Napoleonic Wars and Managed to ship and army to Egypt.
Both operations were failure and Ireland and Egypt are nearer than Virginia or Carolinas. The Spanish - British Fleet would have made impossible for the French Navy to arrive to America.

In 1823 France strolled into Spain and re-instated Ferdinand.
Not France... France and the Spaniards... the Royalist... the 95% Spanish Population. You can read what wrote the Duchess of Angouleme.

May I ask to which conflict you speak of in the 18th century?
Austrian in Italy, British in America... the same british defeated French in Quebec... were defeated by the Spaniards.. the same british are going to beat the French in Egypt.. they were defeated by the Spaniards...Do you think it is coincidence that Britain could defeated the French Empire but could not defeat the Spanish Empire? Example? Battle of Guantanamo, from August 4 to December 9, 1741. British Forces: 4.000 Royal Marines, 9 ships of the line, 12 frigates and other warships, 40 transports and storeships. Spanish Forces: 950 soldiers.
I´m sure you know that the biggest British colonial defeats were not against French or Dutch, but against the Spaniards.
But about Spain -British Alliance in 1776... I think It means a very very different world today...

From a US Marine Corps Commad and Staff College book:

"The fact of the matter is that Spain, while obviously seeking to protect her national and colonial interest, played a significant, if not decisive, role in the events that led to the United States Independence."

For example, without Spain is not possible Yorktown... Lafayette and De Grasse are in America because Spain paid the operation.

"The victory at Yorktown was key for the American colonies success, with de Grasse´s fleet providing naval superiority..... thanks to the money and supplies provided by the Spanish in the Caribbean".

So, the Spanish - British alliance means not money, not supplies... not Lafayette, not de Grasse...
 
Opening several operations fronts, Spain drastically diminished the employment of British forces that could have been used to suppress the revolutionaries in the Thirteen Colonies. More than 11.000 men were sent from Spain to attack the southern border of British North American possessions, actually more than the total number of troops sent by France to fight in the northern colonies during the war. It disrupted British strategy as a whole and forced London to maintain and reinforce its garrisons in Florida and Jamaica. During the time of the American Revolution, Spain not only fought the British on the North American Continent, but also in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Bahamas, Jamaica, Minorca and Gibraltar. Adding to that the French attacks in India, Hudson Bay, Sierra Leone, Western Indies and North America, the British found themselves fighting a global war, as well as facing the threat of a combined Spanish - French invasion to the British homeland.
None of this would have happened with the Anglo - Spanish alliance.
 
Opening several operations fronts, Spain drastically diminished the employment of British forces that could have been used to suppress the revolutionaries in the Thirteen Colonies. More than 11.000 men were sent from Spain to attack the southern border of British North American possessions, actually more than the total number of troops sent by France to fight in the northern colonies during the war. It disrupted British strategy as a whole and forced London to maintain and reinforce its garrisons in Florida and Jamaica. During the time of the American Revolution, Spain not only fought the British on the North American Continent, but also in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Bahamas, Jamaica, Minorca and Gibraltar. Adding to that the French attacks in India, Hudson Bay, Sierra Leone, Western Indies and North America, the British found themselves fighting a global war, as well as facing the threat of a combined Spanish - French invasion to the British homeland.
None of this would have happened with the Anglo - Spanish alliance.

The question is really in two parts

1) Assume Spain and Britain form an alliance and Britain accepts the Spanish demands for Minorca and Gibraltar. France has not entered the war yet. British government is likely to come under extreme pressure due to surrendering to "Papists" (religous bigotry is alive and well in 18th century Britain see the Gordon riots of 1780). Either the Alliance is not signed (in which case back to OTL) or it is signed and the North Government falls precipitating a constitutional crisis. I'd bet money on the Whigs forming the next government and negotiating an early end to the conflict.

2) Assume Spain and Britain form an alliance and Britain accepts the Spanish demands for Minorca and Gibraltar. France has already entered the war (unlikely but possible if Spain is playing both off against each other). Britain still gets the riots mentioned above and Sapin has to deal with the fall out from breaking the "Family Compact" with the French. Given later Spanish history I think that Charles III's position would be considerably undermined by pro-French / anti-British opinion in the country. I would not rule out a palace "coup" in favour of his son or against his ministers.

Also - putting Spanish forces into the Americas as supporters of the Crown is guaranteed to undermine any Loyalist support outside the Catholics in the Colonies. And even they may find it hard to support a government that relies on its arch-enemy to police its own lands.
 
Derek Pullen ,

You've finally written a OTL intelligent, rational and logical...and your conclusions are quite plausible and interesting:


1) Assume Spain and Britain form an alliance and Britain accepts the Spanish demands for Minorca and Gibraltar. France has not entered the war yet. British government is likely to come under extreme pressure due to surrendering to "Papists" (religous bigotry is alive and well in 18th century Britain see the Gordon riots of 1780). Either the Alliance is not signed (in which case back to OTL) or it is signed and the North Government falls precipitating a constitutional crisis. I'd bet money on the Whigs forming the next government and negotiating an early end to the conflict.

Yes we can assume the alliance. As you well say I don´t think France entered the war... and Washington and Continental Army lack of allies, money, supplies... undermined by desertions and defeats. the Rebellion is quelled (I think about 1778, maximum 1779)...and Mississippi river remains the line between both allied Empires.
Yes, you are right: both governments are going to be under extreme pressure: Madrid for being allied with "heretics"... London with "Papists"..of course, the religious question is not as essential as in previous centuries... but I must admit its greatly influenced...Moreover, yield Gibraltar, Florida and Minorca would be very hard, but in exchange Great Britain save their 13 colonies...It is a hard decision but worth. I think as you but
qualifying: I think North Government falls but only if Washington is able to withstand the Anglo-Spanish offensive, which I doubt. Lord North
would have presented to the king, Parliament and the British people's the victory in America, the end of the rebellion and the punishment of the guilty ... I think that victory would have given him enormous prestige ... and everybody would have forgotten the "papists" ... the old enemies of yesteryear .. loyal friends today. The human memory is very selective ... or cynical, if you prefer.
Meanwhile, The Catholic King would have been very happy to show in their Dominions the failure of the American rebellion, the strength of the English alliance and the suppression of a fearsome threat as would have been the establishing of the US.

Assume Spain and Britain form an alliance and Britain accepts the Spanish demands for Minorca and Gibraltar. France has already entered the war (unlikely but possible if Spain is playing both off against each other). Britain still gets the riots mentioned above and Sapin has to deal with the fall out from breaking the "Family Compact" with the French. Given later Spanish history I think that Charles III's position would be considerably undermined by pro-French / anti-British opinion in the country. I would not rule out a palace "coup" in favour of his son or against his ministers.

Here I see more difficulties: You will agree with me that France has no options overseas.. no ruled the Seas and can´t send an army to America without the British-Spanish Fleet intervene.
The attack to Spain is not good idea. We have a precedent: the French invasion in 1719-20. After some initial successes (San Sebastian, Seo de Urgell) ... the French army was defeated by the Spanish counteroffensive, which regained all the lost ground,.
I can´t imagine French Army advancing to Madrid in 1777. I don´t see the coup... No king of Spain was the victim of a family coup before 1808... and the future Charles IV was not Ferdinand VII... the latter was ambitious, cowardly, unscrupulously... but Charles IV was very devote, kind man, incapable of committing a horrible crime as rise against the father ... He had never consented or permitted .. for him it was a crime against God's law. So, I only can imagine a small border war with no strategic advantage for either side. The war would have been decided overseas and there the Anglo-Spanish victory was assured.
 
the Anglo Spanish forces had conquered the few islands that France just possessed overseas. Without the French danger... Wiht a portion of the British Army (121.000 men, 24.000 of them foreigner mercenaries, 40.000 embodied Militia) together the Spanish one (191.000 men, not including the Spanish forces in America, Asia, Oceania and Africa) and the american royalist.... the Washington, Continental Army and the Rebellion days would have been numbered..
 
Top