What if the Armada of 1779 lands a Bourbon Army in the UK - effects on the peace settlement?

Sounds sensible to me, what is the plausible range of concessions France and Spain could get for Wight or Portsmouth? Is just Gibraltar about the size of it?

OTL France occupied several of the UK Lesser Antilles but returned them all except Tobago. Maybe they insist on keeping a couple others.

Or maybe the Channel Islands?
 
OTL France occupied several of the UK Lesser Antilles but returned them all except Tobago. Maybe they insist on keeping a couple others.

Or maybe the Channel Islands?
IMO when guessing about issues like this one it make sense to consider”why?”. The main reasons could be:
1. To return something lost providing it would make practical sense (economic reasons, prestige, some strategically important geography).
2. To gain new territory because it is profitable or has some strategic value (like was the case with Gibraltar)
3. To get something as a matter of a pure prestige

How much profit would the French get from retaining specific islands and how important these specific islands would be for Britain? The biggest one, Trinidad, was Spanish and Tobago was conveniently close to it. So what would be pros and contras for each of those returned?

And what would be the gain from the Channel Islands? Getting few sheep and a bunch of the disgruntled Brits?
 
IMO when guessing about issues like this one it make sense to consider”why?”. The main reasons could be:
1. To return something lost providing it would make practical sense (economic reasons, prestige, some strategically important geography).
2. To gain new territory because it is profitable or has some strategic value (like was the case with Gibraltar)
3. To get something as a matter of a pure prestige

How much profit would the French get from retaining specific islands and how important these specific islands would be for Britain? The biggest one, Trinidad, was Spanish and Tobago was conveniently close to it. So what would be pros and contras for each of those returned?
The Channel Islands would be pure prestige, since they're the last scrap of the British claim on the French throne.
 
The Channel Islands would be pure prestige, since they're the last scrap of the British claim on the French throne.

Taking into an account that by the late XVIII the British claim to the French throne was rather shaky both genealogically and in practical terms, and, AFAIK, the French tended to consider Calais to be the last English foothold on the French soil, how much sense would it have? And what the French would be doing with the locals who considered themselves British? Typical case when prestige amounts exclusively to pain in the butt.
 
The Channel Islands would be pure prestige, since they're the last scrap of the British claim on the French throne.

That yes, but it would also eliminate a British base right off the French coast. Also it was a big location for smuggling which the government would presumably want to bring under control.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I've been on holiday and just noticed this thread. The very first word seems to be the most important... IF. I am not too sure how the combined French and Spanish fleets could have landed 100,000 men complete with horses, artillery, ammunition and supplies without having a fantastic dock facility to disembark from. Would this magically appear somewhere on the south coast allowing the allies a fairly straightforward advance on London? Also the Royal Navy would probably have to be off sailing around the globe just for the sheer hell of it to allow an invasion. You have to bear in mind the there have been NO successful invasions of these islands since 1066 and there is a very good reason for that. It's not any easy thing to do! The Royal Navy, at that time, did rule the waves and the English south coast and it's harbours were more than reasonably safe from interference by any enemy. There may have been plenty of plans for invasion, planning is one thing, but nobody actually tried it. If it was as easy as being suggested then there is a good chance that it may have been attempted, it wasn't. I appreciate that this is an Alternate History website, but the alternate bit should have a degree of realism, not be fantasy based.
 
Sorry, I've been on holiday and just noticed this thread. The very first word seems to be the most important... IF. I am not too sure how the combined French and Spanish fleets could have landed 100,000 men complete with horses, artillery, ammunition and supplies without having a fantastic dock facility to disembark from. Would this magically appear somewhere on the south coast allowing the allies a fairly straightforward advance on London? Also the Royal Navy would probably have to be off sailing around the globe just for the sheer hell of it to allow an invasion. You have to bear in mind the there have been NO successful invasions of these islands since 1066 and there is a very good reason for that. It's not any easy thing to do! The Royal Navy, at that time, did rule the waves and the English south coast and it's harbours were more than reasonably safe from interference by any enemy. There may have been plenty of plans for invasion, planning is one thing, but nobody actually tried it. If it was as easy as being suggested then there is a good chance that it may have been attempted, it wasn't. I appreciate that this is an Alternate History website, but the alternate bit should have a degree of realism, not be fantasy based.

I wonder which of the earlier posts mentioned a landing force of 100K. Perhaps I missed something but I did not find any so the arguments related to that size of the landing force are rather irrelevant. The main subjects of controversy were size and quality of the forces available on the British side and possible strategic goals of the invaders in the case of initial military success (which would allow to bring reinforcements).

It was also remarked in the earlier posts tha at this specific time a combined French and Spanish fleet could successfully stand up to the British navy. At the relevant time and place the allies had 66 ships of line and 30 - 40K troops (to be carried by 400 transport ships) vs British 38 ships of the line (patrolling off the Scilly Isles, not in the Channel), 20K regulars and 39K militia. Clearly, a considerable local advantage at the sea and not too bad odd on land, quality of militia not being as good as of the regular troops.

Not sure what 1066 has to do with the subject. Physical impossibility to land in England? Hardly so because there were numerous successful hostile (to the current regimes) landings, admittedly with a local support but nonetheless. The invasion of 1779 had quite limited goals and conquest of Britain was not one of them.
 
Last edited:
There had been a successful invasion of the British Isles in 1688. Also, the Young Pretender landed in Scotland in 1745, though the invasion ultimately failed, it did land and secured its initial objectives.

Of course, before the modern Royal Navy was built in the sixteenth century, England was invaded countless times in the Middle Ages, including at least three times in the War of the Roses.

In 1779, the Royal Navy was both run down and over-committed, so the circumstances were sort of like in 1688 when it was kept in port by Protestant winds. Yes, amphibious invasion of England is probably out of the question if the Royal Navy can concentrate against it, but this was actually not the case in 1779.
 
Top