Yup, this thread has been very successfully derailed and ruined.
What if the British took Guadeloupe and Martinique as well as Canada after the Seven Years War
- Thread starter VaultJumper
- Start date
sorry about that I was just trying to find some acceptable pod. But it did give me a good timeline idea.
Such a shame that this Thread for some people is a ASB,what is the use of Alternate History if this already as ASB?
I personally learned a lot and it is generally wise to keep it plausible.
Last edited:
Lusitania
Donor
It was never that Britain could not of gotten more. I gave perfect POD to accomplish that. What is fantasy is the thinking that you force France to give up land it controlled with out providing it with a trade.
The issue here was not control of the territory but the negotiations part. To get France to agree to a deal that stipulated it give up territory it controlled without receiving the two most valuable colonies. The Carribean and Grand Banks in return was not possible. That is not possible without extending war and more resources.
The premise of Britain keeping all territoryit captured from France and then in negotiations get France to trade with Spain. Menorca has been spanish for centuries so they wanted it back. France has lost half it Carribean territories it needed to increase its supply of sugar. Britain wanted France out of North American continent. These things could be accomplished as I had indicated several posts above. That was real negotiations not the part about forcing France to hand over everything.
If that had been agreed then we could of discussed the impact in India (no France), in Africa Britain controlling Dakar. In Carribean how people move around and what is produced.
In North America.
What the impact of all this would of had on ARW (if any).
But no we kept talking about putting gun to France head and forcing them to British demands. That was never done unless you had occupied and defeated at home but France is whole and no British soldiers on French soil. So do not blame me for derailing the thread. If people want to discuss a proper POD and it’s ramifications I am all in, but will point out inaccurate points and try to help guide it but it’s upto the person to either accept the historical circumstances and what is possible and what is not. When I kept saying ASB was because there was consideration to historical facts and circumstances at time.
As things stood as the participants came to Paris to negotiate a peace, the British had captured the following possessions from the French: French Canada, French factories in India, some small colonies in Africa, and many of the French islands in the Caribbean including Martinique and Guadeloupe and from the Spanish: Cuba and the Philippines. The French had captured from the British: Minorca and some trading posts in Sumatra, while the Spanish had captured the fortress of Almeida from the Portuguese.
Everybody could had just kept what they possessed and went away fat dumb and happy but the British really, really wanted Minorca back; it was their main naval base inside the Med (remember, they didn't have Malta in those days). So they are going to have to offer something to the French to get it back from them. By the same token, the Portuguese wanted their fortress back but they didn't have anything to entice the Spanish to give it up.
The British could have offered to give back French Canada to France in exchange for Minorca but that would put them back in the same poor strategic situation they had when the war began; that's not really smart. It makes more sense to offer up Guadeloupe and Martinique as part of the trade along with the islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The British still kept most of the old French colonies in the Caribbean so it wasn't like they gave back everything they had captured and the French valued these islands over Canada. The British really didn't want to keep either Cuba or the Philippines, way too expensive for the return, so they gave them up in exchange for the Spanish returning Almeida to the Portuguese and the Spain turning over Spanish Florida. By this means, they have remove the threats from the North and the South to the British North American colonies, pretty slick strategic thinking.
This left the French supposedly controlling the Louisiana territory, which the British could live with since it was relatively distant from the colonies; but unknown to the British, the French and Spanish secretly agreed to the Treaty of Fontainbleu which gave Louisiana to the Spanish. This actually made the British strategic position much stronger since the Spanish were a weaker foe than the French and even less likely to stir up the Native Americans along the frontier.
The British wanted property out of the peace treaty which they didn't control so they have to give up something off value to get it. Yes, the British could have made another attempt to recapture Minorca but both the British and French wanted to end the war and who knows if they would be successful.
Everybody could had just kept what they possessed and went away fat dumb and happy but the British really, really wanted Minorca back; it was their main naval base inside the Med (remember, they didn't have Malta in those days). So they are going to have to offer something to the French to get it back from them. By the same token, the Portuguese wanted their fortress back but they didn't have anything to entice the Spanish to give it up.
The British could have offered to give back French Canada to France in exchange for Minorca but that would put them back in the same poor strategic situation they had when the war began; that's not really smart. It makes more sense to offer up Guadeloupe and Martinique as part of the trade along with the islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The British still kept most of the old French colonies in the Caribbean so it wasn't like they gave back everything they had captured and the French valued these islands over Canada. The British really didn't want to keep either Cuba or the Philippines, way too expensive for the return, so they gave them up in exchange for the Spanish returning Almeida to the Portuguese and the Spain turning over Spanish Florida. By this means, they have remove the threats from the North and the South to the British North American colonies, pretty slick strategic thinking.
This left the French supposedly controlling the Louisiana territory, which the British could live with since it was relatively distant from the colonies; but unknown to the British, the French and Spanish secretly agreed to the Treaty of Fontainbleu which gave Louisiana to the Spanish. This actually made the British strategic position much stronger since the Spanish were a weaker foe than the French and even less likely to stir up the Native Americans along the frontier.
The British wanted property out of the peace treaty which they didn't control so they have to give up something off value to get it. Yes, the British could have made another attempt to recapture Minorca but both the British and French wanted to end the war and who knows if they would be successful.
So a different government and/or removal of powerful bargaining chip are not good pods but you are probably right. How ever you did give me an idea for another thread about if Pitt and New castle were still in charge and GB does better in the war. would be happy to see you there if your interested because you keep people honest.
Spain was not willing to give up Cuba and I don't think Britain hand was strong to take even Manila from Spain. I don't know how much mileage you get out my pod's and arguments but I don't think it takes a drastic for GB to be more aggressive in the Treaty of Pairs but if they were they would probably take Goree of the coast of Senegal instead of Martinique and Guadeloupe.
Britain had already conquered Havana and Manila giving them de facto control of those colonies, so they did do what you just said they couldn't.
TBH, I'm not getting any mileage out of your arguments.
Why in the hell would the French decide to exchange Minorca for a couple of minor colonies on the Senegal coast? That is totally idiotic.
It was a peace negotiation, not a capitulation; both parties had to agree to make it work. Unilateral peace treaties didn't start until the advent of Napoleon.
Yes, the British could be more aggressive in their negotiations but if they do as you propose they would be worse off strategically.
Spain was not going to accept a treaty with Cuba being given up and the British only had Manila their is still a lot Philippines to go after also Spain is lot harder to enforce a peace on because of their size and amount of colonies not to mention all the tropical diseases France's first colonial empire was extremely vulnerable and small compared to spains thus easier to take
unprincipled peter
Donor
It wasn't unknown to the British. It was their idea. Spain wanted to carry on, but France was desperate to end the war, so Bute suggested giving LA to Spain to soften the blow of losing Florida.
The not knowing, and the notion that Canada was unprofitable are two ongoing myths of the era. LA was unprofitable. Canada, while not gaining money hand over fist, was not.
Last edited:
The peace treaty states that Louisiana west of the Mississippi would be French, even though the French and Spanish had signed the treaty of Fontainebleau the previous autumn. If it were a British initiative to give the territory to Spain, I don’t know why the treaty of Paris would not state this.
unprincipled peter
Donor
there are plenty of reasons why 'secret' treaties, while well known in diplomatic circles, are officially kept 'secret'. usually it's for public, or political, purposes.
What political advantage would there be here? No one in France cared about Louisiana, which is why they gave it away for nothing in return.
I think you may be confusing this with some other treaty.
Lusitania
Donor
We have to remember that once Napoleon lost Haiti then the French had no use for Louisiana that was why he gave it (sold it I mean) to the USA.
unprincipled peter
Donor
no. I've read about this in several texts/sources.
Often times, things are done 'secretly' or public statements made alternatively for purposes of public consumption. It can be a sales pitch, or a means of keeping the public unawares, or a form of allowing others to save face. In the world of diplomacy, not all is always face value. It could be as simple as allowing Spain time to get their ducks in a row for taking control, which did not occur for months/years.
unprincipled peter
Donor
and the return of LA to France was also supposedly secret, yet the US knew exactly where to send the purchasing agents to inquire about a sale.
rember the US had a secret land sense and knew when easy land was available for to be gifted to them. (America is the Blood Ravens of Countries)
