Wars after ARW Fail

[Snake Featherston]

There's actually another thread on that; suffice to say here, I don't agree

And I disagree with that, given they reacted very badly to someone who wasn't even an abolitionist. The reaction of slaveholders to trans-Atlantic abolition would make 1860 looks like child's play.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I meant I don't agree that abolition would emerge in the UK as per OTL -- sorry about being unclear

I edited the noted post to include a link

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

So to sum up: France, Spain, and the Netherlands are ready to take Britain down a notch, while Britain is doing little to counteract her growing enemies. There are also a series of potential regional powderkegs that span five continents.

Could this mean Britain gets taken down in a global war?

 

[Lukkonle]

'Only' 3 million settlers, in a time, when England itself had 'only' 9 million people.

So more people to recruit for war you say?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Well, if you're concerned with European ancestry then the ratio was more than five to one in England's favor vis a vis the thirteen colonies and then you have Scotland and Wales...


Not much evidence France, Spain and Holland were going to all pile on England at this point, least of all Holland.


In India the British are vastly superior to the other Europeans following the acquisition of Bengal. This left the British with resources and troop levels far beyond anything the French or Dutch or...could hope to field.

 

[archaeogeek]

Well, if you're concerned with European ancestry then the ratio was more than five to one in England's favor vis a vis the thirteen colonies and then you have Scotland and Wales...


Not much evidence France, Spain and Holland were going to all pile on England at this point, least of all Holland.


In India the British are vastly superior to the other Europeans following the acquisition of Bengal. This left the British with resources and troop levels far beyond anything the French or Dutch or...could hope to field.

And yet IOTL
- France was undergoing a rather significant naval rebuilding project coupled with increased efforts by french intelligence to survey british defences in the south (which somehow managed to be done without the british government realizing it, this despite the spy they sent being even more flamboyant and in your face about pretty much everything than his contact at the french embassy, Eon)
- The french and their allies in India still somehow managed to kick Britain around during the revolution.
- Without American independence the hubristic factor that threw Prussia and the Netherlands away from their British alliance remain.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

None of these French buildups or preparations actually amounted to much OTL, except to eventually expand the RN through captures at sea during yet another war.

The British were certainly not kicked around in India, ending the war even stronger than at the start with the Dutch losing most of what they had and the French only getting their territory back at the peace talks. That point, that British resources on the spot were now a match for anything France or Holland or both could send plus any native opposition, was crucial.

Holland wasn't a British ally in the Seven Years War either and it was clear to the British that any alliance with Prussia which meant enmity from France, Russia AND Austria was a liability after that war.

 

[archaeogeek]

None of these French buildups or preparations actually amounted to much OTL, except to eventually expand the RN through captures at sea during yet another war.

The British were certainly not kicked around in India, ending the war even stronger than at the start with the Dutch losing most of what they had and the French only getting their territory back at the peace talks. That point, that British resources on the spot were now a match for anything France or Holland or both could send plus any native opposition, was crucial.

Holland wasn't a British ally in the Seven Years War either and it was clear to the British that any alliance with Prussia which meant enmity from France, Russia AND Austria was a liability after that war.

Question: do you live in an ATL where the french and americans somehow lost the ARW?

 

[Faeelin]

Not much evidence France, Spain and Holland were going to all pile on England at this point, least of all Holland.

And yet it happened during the Revolution and during the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Faeelin, Holland entered the ARW in the final months and achieved very little except to lose a few colonies.

During the Napoleonic Wars Holland was under French occupation for most of the period, which may be why Holland didn't achieve much militarily. Spain also found itself occupied by France for much of the war, becoming the proverbial bleeding wound in the side of Napoleon's Empire.



archaeogeek, I live in the one where the British ended the war in India stronger than at the start and where the French fleet managed a single tactical victory during the entire ARW, that ironically being the one which cost Cornwallis so dearly. Which one do you live in?

 

[archaeogeek]

Faeelin, Holland entered the ARW in the final months and achieved very little except to lose a few colonies.

During the Napoleonic Wars Holland was under French occupation for most of the period, which may be why Holland didn't achieve much militarily. Spain also found itself occupied by France for much of the war, becoming the proverbial bleeding wound in the side of Napoleon's Empire.



archaeogeek, I live in the one where the British ended the war in India stronger than at the start and where the French fleet managed a single tactical victory during the entire ARW, that ironically being the one which cost Cornwallis so dearly. Which one do you live in?

Considering the best the british could accomplish for most of the war was indecisive fleet actions, that they lost their main engagement and only somewhat saved face by holding off an invasion of the west indies; also that the french more or less sacrificed gains in India to ensure american independence (and they still recovered most of the lands lost during the 7yw except in [edit=lapsus]America[/edit] itself), I'd say it's not exactly bad.

Sure, it's not the war of Jenkins Ear, I guess, but not every defeat of pre-revolutionary Great Britain has to be so humiliating that it involves a cover up.

The Revolution hasn't happened yet, the french naval officer corps is still there and the navy hasn't been decimated by the purges. Plus the way the revolution would have happened lacking independent United States isn't set in stone...

 

[Faeelin]

Faeelin, Holland entered the ARW in the final months and achieved very little except to lose a few colonies.

During the Napoleonic Wars Holland was under French occupation for most of the period, which may be why Holland didn't achieve much militarily. Spain also found itself occupied by France for much of the war, becoming the proverbial bleeding wound in the side of Napoleon's Empire.

Much of the war? Nappy invaded Spain in 1808, so that's a 6 year period. In contrast Spain was a French ally for pretty much the entire period from 1797 to 1808.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Grimm Reaper,

Suppose Britain and the Franco-Spanish alliance found themselves at war in TTL; would Britain be able to secure allies, given her prevailing attitudes at the time? I'd say no.

And given the opportunity of Britain in such a precarious situation, would the Dutch be sorely tempted to press their advantage? I'd say yes.

If I am right, then Britain is indeed facing a geopolitical pile on.

 

[freodhoric]

I think that the French would've supported the Polish in the partitions if they hadn't already been involved in America. Of course, if they're sinking money into supporting the Poles, that kind of invalidates my next paragraph. Anyway, Austria wasn't very enthusiastic about the partitions, so if the French get mixed in there, i think they would too.

The French Revolution I don't believe is butterflied away. The problems that caused it are still there and it's only going to be pushed back.

The French Revolution won't occur in anything like OTL's time frame if there is no French involvement in the ARW because they sunk a ton money in supporting us, lack of which was the direct cause of Louis convening the Estates-General. Without that, no movement will have enough of an appearance of legitimacy to get enough support to get anything big done. IMHO, with the kind of reforming Louis was trying to do, give him a couple of decades and there could be a lasting French monarchy. In fact, i could see a noble's revolt in that time frame.

And Britain is going to have to give the colonies something to keep them in their sphere.

Hmmm. They should.

 

[stevep]

JFP

The attitude might be a serious problem if lessons weren't learnt. However as pointed out OTL ARW went about as badly as it could be for Britain and other than the American colonies it lost nothing of significance. Despite a less than stellar performance they managed to largely hold their own and was making progress in the last few stages. Also while the British economy was struggling it's

If instead there was a short conflict, seeing a sectional rebellion defeated in the colonies and then the possibility that the Franco-Spanish fight Britain later, what would be the basis of them doing better than OTL in the 1778-81 period? Especially if there is no significant unrest in the American colonies, draining considerable resources from Britain or causing disunity in Britain itself?

Britain is still likely to do relatively poorly later on due to its nature as a essentially parliamentary state. However it has a staying power that the autocratic states of the Bourbons can't match, even if France doesn't get distracted by some other distraction in Europe.

Steve

Grimm Reaper,

Suppose Britain and the Franco-Spanish alliance found themselves at war in TTL; would Britain be able to secure allies, given her prevailing attitudes at the time? I'd say no.

And given the opportunity of Britain in such a precarious situation, would the Dutch be sorely tempted to press their advantage? I'd say yes.

If I am right, then Britain is indeed facing a geopolitical pile on.

 

[Lukkonle]

I think that the French would've supported the Polish in the partitions if they hadn't already been involved in America. Of course, if they're sinking money into supporting the Poles, that kind of invalidates my next paragraph. Anyway, Austria wasn't very enthusiastic about the partitions, so if the French get mixed in there, i think they would too.

Hmm, that is interesting-some kind of Catholic League and early version of Holy Alliance ?

 

[Faeelin]

JFP

The attitude might be a serious problem if lessons weren't learnt. However as pointed out OTL ARW went about as badly as it could be for Britain and other than the American colonies it lost nothing of significance.

How do you figure? the British Isles could have been invaded, Gibraltar almost fell, etc.

I also think we need to get over the idea that the American Revolution was the cause of major dissent and strife in Britain. Surprisingly enough, it was viewed very popularly.

 

[stevep]

How do you figure? the British Isles could have been invaded, Gibraltar almost fell, etc.

Could have done but didn't. If we had another conflict in which Britain was not heavily distracted in N America, let alone it might be an asset then it's likely that things will go at least as well for Britain. Probably some early losses and mistakes because that is pretty much standard. However once it gets into stride Britain has too much of an edge in terms of its organisation and motivation.

I also think we need to get over the idea that the American Revolution was the cause of major dissent and strife in Britain. Surprisingly enough, it was viewed very popularly.

That's why it was such a cause of dissent and strife, because some people thought that the rebels had a case. Also possibly because some of the people pressing for reform, probably unwisely, linked the demands of the rebels with their own aims. [I say unwisely because the two were actually on opposing paths and also because it may well have alienated some who otherwise might have supported reform. The excesses of the French revolution were what really blocked reform for a generation but association with the American rebels probably didn't help].

Steve

 

[Faeelin]

Could have done but didn't.

Sure, but then it's a bit odd to say "it went as badly as it could have," no?"

If we had another conflict in which Britain was not heavily distracted in N America, let alone it might be an asset then it's likely that things will go at least as well for Britain. Probably some early losses and mistakes because that is pretty much standard. However once it gets into stride Britain has too much of an edge in terms of its organisation and motivation.

I think we should remember that after 1777 Britain was largely on the defensive in the colonies; it held New York and invaded the southern colonies, but that was about it. And I don't think the American colonies would be quiescent after the Revolution was suppressed, judging by the British experience in the American South.

That's why it was such a cause of dissent and strife, because some people thought that the rebels had a case. Also possibly because some of the people pressing for reform, probably unwisely, linked the demands of the rebels with their own aims. [I say unwisely because the two were actually on opposing paths and also because it may well have alienated some who otherwise might have supported reform. The excesses of the French revolution were what really blocked reform for a generation but association with the American rebels probably didn't help].

I'm skeptical that the war was unpopular because the Tea Act, Intolerable Acts, Quebec Act, etc. all passed by wide margins. Men as diverse as Samuel Johnson and John Wesley supported the War, and the Opposition Peer Lord Camden complained that the war and America's revolt had made the Tories more popular.

 

[Lukkonle]

So what would happen to colonies after the failed war.
Obviously they wouldn't be ruled by iron hand? What would be the solution regarding their treatment?
And how long could it last, without the colonies dominating in terms of demographic and influence.
Could it be that in 30-50 years they would get their independence anyway?