Wars after ARW Fail

[Faeelin]

So what would happen to colonies after the failed war.
Obviously they wouldn't be ruled by iron hand?

What was rule like in Scotland after 1745, or Ireland after 1798?

We know how the British reestablished rule in their southern colonies during the war; win a manner that caused even many loyalists to lose faith in them, as they made no effort to reopen the colonial assemblies or welcome them in the ranks. If the revolution is beaten early on, the perception in Britain will be that the Americans are an indolent, easily subdued people; this was a British perception at the time, based upon American bungling in the Seven Years War.

 

[Lukkonle]

What was rule like in Scotland after 1745, or Ireland after 1798?

Apples and oranges. Colonies are different in many, many ways from Scotland and Ireland.

 

[Faeelin]

Apples and oranges. Colonies are different in many, many ways from Scotland and Ireland.

What's the difference?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Lukkonie, since it took another century before the US would equal Great Britain either economically or in population and that was due partially to decisions which the British would probably not have made...


Faeelin, actually the British weren't on the defensive so much as they went until 1779 without a clear strategy, viable or otherwise, for winning the war. It was the invasion of Georgia which finally saw a strategy to win the war, alas dependent on loyalist sentiment which could not be found to a viable degree in North Carolina or Virginia and even in South Carolina the loyalists required significant support from the regulars.

As for the popularity of the various moves taken prior to the war nonetheless dramatic changes were expected, feared on the part of George III, should the Tories fall from power. There is a fundamental weakness in a policy or policies which require that one party remain in power indefinitely because the other party is bent on reversing or cancelling that program.

As for supporting the war so many of the UK's prominent officers chose not to serve in the war that you have to sense a serious domestic problem while it is not unreasonable for Brits otherwise sympathizing with the colonies to support the war for fear of the consequences of defeat or the precedent being set. The Whigs didn't oppose the Tory policies because they wanted the Americans to become independent but because they feared a war might lead to such a result.

 

[freodhoric]

Apples and oranges. Colonies are different in many, many ways from Scotland and Ireland.

True, but will the people in power realise that?

What's the difference?

For one thing, the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[Antipater]

I agree with your premise that a major European War is likely following an abortive ARW. But I do not think that it would necessarily be a case of Spain, France and the United Provinces ganging up on England. Sure, Spain wanted Florida back, and France would like Canada back, but they had a lot more to lose than gain from a renewed conflict with GB. France could still lose Martinique, and the vulnerabilities of Spain's empire had been displayed during the previous war with England.

The ARW was in many ways a unique set of circumstances. GB appeared to be weak, and Spain and the Netherlands wanted to get a piece of GB while it down (an extremely shortsighted move in my opinion). I cannot easily imagine a similar event happening for the following reason:

England only got involved in continental wars to preserve the balance of power, or protect their empire. After the Seven Years War France was clearly not a latent European hegeomon, making it less likely that Britain would be inclined to enter into a war against France unless they decided to pick on the Low Countries.

Furthermore, France and Spain had too much on their own plate take on GB at full strength. France was economically depleted, and risked the loss of the remainder of its colonial empire to GB. Spain's empire was too expansive to defend from the inevitable RN counterattack.

I think the next major European War would involve the continuing dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, or perhaps the Second Polish Partition if France was feeling especially confident.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Well, I'll hand it to you Antipater, that's a pretty solid argument.

Let me ask then: Does this mean that Britain, for the near future at least, is safe in its position as, let's call it, "Preeminent Great Power"?

 

[Paul Spring]

A few points:

A victorious Britain definitely could end up being in trouble in a near-future European war if victory causes them to overestimate their military prowess. Certainly in OTL their army didn't perform very well in the early phases of the French Revolutionary wars, and that was after a defeat that should have provoked more reforms. Their navy did a lot better, but it was facing a French navy that had been badly hurt by the revolution, supported by the fleets of reluctant allies. Against an unimpeded French royal navy, with more solid support from, say, Bourbon Spain, it could find itself in a similar situation to OTL's ARW - managing to hold its own, but not bringing the kind of decisive victories that it had during the 7 years' war.

Britain also has, like others have mentioned, the problem of having very few solid allies on the continent. That could change, of course, but British diplomacy, much like its military, was not performing that well at this period.

On the other hand, France would still be in tough shape financially, and even a successful war would probably leave it in even worse shape. This would put the same kind of pressure on the French king that Louis XVI was facing in 1788-89 in OTL. If the king is still Louis XVI, that's a serious problem right there, because Louis was just not an effective leader, especially not in a time of great domestic tension. Whether this would lead to something like OTL French Revolution beginning 5 or 10 years later is impossible to say. Louis or his advisors might still handle the situation better and achieve fiscal reform without losing their authority. If the estates-general is called in a time when the country hadn't experienced bad harvests and food shortages, as it had in 1788-89, there might not have been many food riots and uprisings in either the country or cities, which might have allowed the royal government to face down political opposition much more effectively.

 

[Faeelin]

us moves taken prior to the war nonetheless dramatic changes were expected, feared on the part of George III, should the Tories fall from power.

Sure, had someone like Fox taken power in 1775 the world might be very different. But I don't see any way for this to happen, as the Tories had a commanding hold on Parliament at this point.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

My big question I'm trying to settle right now: Is Britain, for the near future at least, safe in its position as, let's call it, "Preeminent Great Power"?

AIUI, there's two posts that make the opposing cases very well, and I'm unsure where I stand currently; Paul Spring makes the case I was originally trying to make:

A victorious Britain definitely could end up being in trouble in a near-future European war if victory causes them to overestimate their military prowess. Certainly in OTL their army didn't perform very well in the early phases of the French Revolutionary wars, and that was after a defeat that should have provoked more reforms. Their navy did a lot better, but it was facing a French navy that had been badly hurt by the revolution, supported by the fleets of reluctant allies. Against an unimpeded French royal navy, with more solid support from, say, Bourbon Spain, it could find itself in a similar situation to OTL's ARW - managing to hold its own, but not bringing the kind of decisive victories that it had during the 7 years' war.

Britain also has, like others have mentioned, the problem of having very few solid allies on the continent. That could change, of course, but British diplomacy, much like its military, was not performing that well at this period.

On the other hand, France would still be in tough shape financially, and even a successful war would probably leave it in even worse shape. This would put the same kind of pressure on the French king that Louis XVI was facing in 1788-89 in OTL. If the king is still Louis XVI, that's a serious problem right there, because Louis was just not an effective leader, especially not in a time of great domestic tension. Whether this would lead to something like OTL French Revolution beginning 5 or 10 years later is impossible to say. Louis or his advisors might still handle the situation better and achieve fiscal reform without losing their authority. If the estates-general is called in a time when the country hadn't experienced bad harvests and food shortages, as it had in 1788-89, there might not have been many food riots and uprisings in either the country or cities, which might have allowed the royal government to face down political opposition much more effectively.

But Antipater makes the case that Britain may not be in so much trouble...

I agree with your premise that a major European War is likely following an abortive ARW. But I do not think that it would necessarily be a case of Spain, France and the United Provinces ganging up on England. Sure, Spain wanted Florida back, and France would like Canada back, but they had a lot more to lose than gain from a renewed conflict with GB. France could still lose Martinique, and the vulnerabilities of Spain's empire had been displayed during the previous war with England.

The ARW was in many ways a unique set of circumstances. GB appeared to be weak, and Spain and the Netherlands wanted to get a piece of GB while it down (an extremely shortsighted move in my opinion). I cannot easily imagine a similar event happening for the following reason:

England only got involved in continental wars to preserve the balance of power, or protect their empire. After the Seven Years War France was clearly not a latent European hegeomon, making it less likely that Britain would be inclined to enter into a war against France unless they decided to pick on the Low Countries.

Furthermore, France and Spain had too much on their own plate take on GB at full strength. France was economically depleted, and risked the loss of the remainder of its colonial empire to GB. Spain's empire was too expansive to defend from the inevitable RN counterattack.

I think the next major European War would involve the continuing dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, or perhaps the Second Polish Partition if France was feeling especially confident.

I have to hand it to him, that's a pretty solid argument.

Any other thoughts?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

GB appeared to be weak, and Spain and the Netherlands wanted to get a piece of GB while it down (an extremely shortsighted move in my opinion).

Bullcrap, the British declared war on the Dutch.

England only got involved in continental wars to preserve the balance of power, or protect their empire. After the Seven Years War France was clearly not a latent European hegeomon, making it less likely that Britain would be inclined to enter into a war against France

France on its own wasn't going to overturn the balance of power, France as part of an alliance could.

unless they decided to pick on the Low Countries.

That stopped being an issue after the Diplomatic Revolution.

I think the next major European War would involve the continuing dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, or perhaps the Second Polish Partition if France was feeling especially confident.

I think everybody's forgetting that the War of Bavarian Succession began a year after the POD. The French and British, without their hands tied in North America, could either prevent it by the prospect of their intervention or join it once it starts.

Is Britain, for the near future at least, safe in its position as, let's call it, "Preeminent Great Power"?

Outside Europe, they have favorable odds against any likely combination of their rivals, at least if they don't also have to face another American Revolution, a rebellion in Quebec and/or a much stronger Indian opponent. Within Europe, the odds appear to be against them.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Was Great Britain in a dominant position at the time or did it simply enjoy the advantage due a naval power which can afford to not have a large standing army and to take the time to decide which side to join in a war, if it joins at all?

 

[archaeogeek]

Was Great Britain in a dominant position at the time or did it simply enjoy the advantage due a naval power which can afford to not have a large standing army and to take the time to decide which side to join in a war, if it joins at all?

Advantage, it was far from dominant; sure they won as an alliance in the seven years war, but they had also lost war against Spain in the colonies in the 40s and instead of reforms they did a coverup, and they were on the losing side of the war of austrian succession. Dominance mostly came as a result of the Napoleonic wars; the revolution having gutted the french navy, Trafalgar and colonial independence the Spanish navy (and a lot of fleet/landing actions against Spanish irregulars and colonial regiments during the FRW still managed to fail), and time having done it for the Dutch, the three countries with which Britain had fought for military dominance and exchanged it back and forth for the last two centuries didn't present a credible naval threat anymore, at least until France restored its navy in the last parts of the 19th century but by this point the RN was overwhelming and France and Britain were already forming the basis of the Entente Cordiale.

 

[Snake Featherston]

I agree with your premise that a major European War is likely following an abortive ARW. But I do not think that it would necessarily be a case of Spain, France and the United Provinces ganging up on England. Sure, Spain wanted Florida back, and France would like Canada back, but they had a lot more to lose than gain from a renewed conflict with GB. France could still lose Martinique, and the vulnerabilities of Spain's empire had been displayed during the previous war with England.

The ARW was in many ways a unique set of circumstances. GB appeared to be weak, and Spain and the Netherlands wanted to get a piece of GB while it down (an extremely shortsighted move in my opinion). I cannot easily imagine a similar event happening for the following reason:

England only got involved in continental wars to preserve the balance of power, or protect their empire. After the Seven Years War France was clearly not a latent European hegeomon, making it less likely that Britain would be inclined to enter into a war against France unless they decided to pick on the Low Countries.

Furthermore, France and Spain had too much on their own plate take on GB at full strength. France was economically depleted, and risked the loss of the remainder of its colonial empire to GB. Spain's empire was too expansive to defend from the inevitable RN counterattack.

I think the next major European War would involve the continuing dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, or perhaps the Second Polish Partition if France was feeling especially confident.

The Ottoman Empire of the 1770s was not the one of the WWI era. Then it still had control of most of the Balkans and nationalism did not exist. The Western powers would also have to deal with Russia and I daresay Peter the Great defeating the Swedes will leave the Brits facing an emerging Russia at the same time as the Europeans would be considering another venture against the Ottomans.

'Twill not end well. Especially since for a good long while the French were actually the Ottomans' allies.

 

[Faeelin]

A few points:

A victorious Britain definitely could end up being in trouble in a near-future European war if victory causes them to overestimate their military prowess.

equally important, perhaps, is that it may cause other powers to overinflate Britain's palace. A lot of non-Britons thought Britain's colonial victories had made them too strong, and threatened the world with a universal monarchy based in London. (or rather, a nation that dominated the world through exclusive control and monopoly of trade). This is why Catherine and Maria Theresa supported the Americans, to varying degrees, and why the League of Armed Neutrality was formed.

On the other hand, France would still be in tough shape financially, and even a successful war would probably leave it in even worse shape. This would put the same kind of pressure on the French king that Louis XVI was facing in 1788-89 in OTL.

On the other hand, Necker's reforms would get a few more years to go into action, and he's continue making them.

 

[Antipater]

Bullcrap, the British declared war on the Dutch.

The British declared war on the Dutch only after the Dutch had started acting as a co-belligerent of both France and the US. By supplying naval supplies to France and undermining the GB blockade of that country, and then refusing to back down when confronted, the Dutch chose war when they could have just as easily sat out.
Furthermore, even after the declaration of War, GB made several peace overtures, which were rejected by the Dutch, who preferred to throw in their lot with the French.
Overall I will concede that the Dutch were more interested in maintaining their own position that taking down GB, as was the case with Spain.

France on its own wasn't going to overturn the balance of power, France as part of an alliance could.

And what alliance would that be? Spain and Austria nice allies for a continental war, but even combined they would not seriously threaten Great Britain, at least not without bringing in the intervention of Prussia or Russia, which were both very much wanted to maintain the status-quo in the West.

That stopped being an issue after the Diplomatic Revolution.

I am aware of that fact, and was kind of alluding to that fact when I used it to support my contention that GB was unlikely to get involved in another European War.

I think everybody's forgetting that the War of Bavarian Succession began a year after the POD. The French and British, without their hands tied in North America, could either prevent it by the prospect of their intervention or join it once it starts.

I don't think GB would want to get involved in that conflict, or if it did I doubt it would have done more than subsidized Prussia like it had in the Seven Years' War. Catherine II would have intervened on Prussia's behalf, which would have been more than sufficient to halt any Austrian aggression.

The only way GB would get involved would be if France did something like invade Prussia, which would have been the height of idiocy. Austria could not possibly have stood against both Russia and Prussia, so it would have been a lost cause. Even if France was able to defeat both countries they would only suceed in strengthening an historic rival.

Outside Europe, they have favorable odds against any likely combination of their rivals, at least if they don't also have to face another American Revolution, a rebellion in Quebec and/or a much stronger Indian opponent. Within Europe, the odds appear to be against them.

Agreed. But those odds mean nothing so long as the Royal Navy maintains its supremacy in the channel. Its not as GB has any foreign policy goals in continental Europe other than maintaining the balance of power.

 

[stevep]

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

Not as it could have gone but definitely as bad as it was likely to go. You had a complacent and incompetent military and government facing an alliance of France and Spain, which weren't distracted by a continental conflict, later joined by the Dutch and with squabbles with the Baltic powers. At the same time was what was basically a civil war being waged across the Atlantic. [Which was an additional problem as since the rebels were British citizens there were constraints on what could be done against them].

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.

Difficult to say what would happen about the colonies as there are so many options. However agree that likely to see some problems but may not be widespread rebellion.

True Britain was very much on the defencive until the end but they were also defending a very advanced position after the 7 years war. Also, in the hypothetical conflict here there is almost certainly less problems in the colonies and you could also see support in at least some areas as they hope to gain land from the Spanish, or simply to protect their own trade and interests.

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.

The establishment was heavily in favour because that was government policy in a period when opposition to the monarchies stance had largely collapsed. Also the factor that many were unhappy at the debt level in Britain and thought it proper that the Americans should make some contribution. However some major figures, most noticeably Chatham objected and so did a lot of those pressing for reform in Britain. [I suspect they thought, not very accurately, that the American rebels were in a similar position to themselves, desiring greater say in Parliament in return for citizenship].

Steve

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

And what alliance would that be? Spain and Austria nice allies for a continental war, but even combined they would not seriously threaten Great Britain, at least not without bringing in the intervention of Prussia or Russia, which were both very much wanted to maintain the status-quo in the West.

Since when is seriously threatening Britain the same as overturning the balance of power? Napoleon and Hitler turned the balance to dust and could have remained continental hegemons without ever crossing the Channel. A French-led alliance can become dominant on the European mainland, even strike at the British if need be (Gibraltar, Minorca, Hanover), without ever making a move in the direction of the British Isles.

It doesn't even have to go as far as an alliance or overturning the balance of power; just look at the Leagues of Armed Neutrality.

You want to talk the 'Russias, fine. Prussia could be destroyed as a Great Power, as the 7YW demonstrated, presuming it even chooses to stick its neck out for the Brits, and Russia's interest in Western Europe was marginal; they'd happily back an anti-British coalition in exchange for a free hand on their western or southern border.

The only way GB would get involved would be if France did something like invade Prussia, which would have been the height of idiocy.

Refusing to back the Austrians without the excuse of the ARW would have cost them their strongest ally and undermined their ability to make new ones. It would have been a diplomatic disaster for France.

Austria could not possibly have stood against both Russia and Prussia, so it would have been a lost cause.

Except Russia is not an unbeatable war machine and Catherine the Great would have been less inclined to go to war against France and Austria than against Austria alone.

Even if France was able to defeat both countries they would only suceed in strengthening an historic rival.

A historic rival is not a current rival, which is what Prussia was.

Agreed. But those odds mean nothing so long as the Royal Navy maintains its supremacy in the channel. Its not as GB has any foreign policy goals in continental Europe other than maintaining the balance of power.

And what I'm saying is that the balance of power can be overturned.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Outside Europe, they have favorable odds against any likely combination of their rivals, at least if they don't also have to face another American Revolution, a rebellion in Quebec and/or a much stronger Indian opponent. Within Europe, the odds appear to be against them.

Thanks; so how would a bad war in Europe affect the larger British Empire? Does it weaken it enough that France, for example, can expand it's sphere?

 

[The Kiat]

Could we have a general war in North America between Spain, Britain and Russia?