WI Anglo-French war between 1816 and 1914 ?

In a 19th c. war w/ France, Britain would have sought to...


  • Total voters
    51

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Would Britain have sought to basically destroy the French colonial empire, as Pitt had done in the 1760s?

Or would British aims have been more restrained?

Why did Britain tolerate France gaining a second colonial empire anyway after it went to so much trouble to trounce its global colonial empire in 1763 and its European hegemony in 1809-1815?
 
Destroying France would disrupt the balance of power. A colony here and there, mayhaps some naval restrictions, that is all that would be sought.
 
Completely dependent on the the context of the war. That being said complete destruction of the French colonial empire wouldn't be on the cards. It's very difficult to see why Britain would want Algeria for example and the idea of giving the Algerians independence wouldn't occur to anyone. But if France is stupid enough to fight Britain in it's prime the good bits of the colonial empire are going to be redistributed.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
an illustrated example from mid-century

If the Muhammad Ali crisis of 1840 turned into a larger war as some, including Adolphe Thiers advocated.

blankworldUCS 1845 for Muhammad Ali Crisis.PNG
 
If the Muhammad Ali crisis of 1840 turned into a larger war as some, including Adolphe Thiers advocated.

I think in that case those sort of minor territories would be on the table at the peace negotiations but this is very much the era of less than total war and bargaining.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Here's another example from turn of the century...

...the Fashoda Incident (1898) turns into a hot war between Britain and France. Perhaps Russia joins in as ally to France.

Map of 1901 - reference for Fashoda War, Britain versus France, maybe Russia too.PNG
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Fleshing out the Fashoda War (1898) and the Levantine-Rhenish War (1840) a bit -

On the Fashoda-sparked global war of Britain versus France and Russia:

"In such a case, when the Russo-Japanese comes, Great Britain will surely join Japan against the Russians.

Great Britain might even join the Triple Alliance to form the Quadruple Alliance. "


I think that a Russo-Japanese War would not need to wait until 1904. It probably break out in 1898 or 1899 with Japan joining Britain and the Dominions as an ally against Russia and France as soon as it is assured Britain is not too weak and as the details of London's financing and arming of Tokyo are worked out. The Japanese are already angry at the Russians (and French) over the intervention of 1895.

On the other side, the Franco-Russian coalition has a high chance of attracting allies in Africa, including Abyssinia and the Boer Republics, already smarting over the Jameson Raid and London's obvious agenda of gaining control over all South Africa.

As for Germany, in some ways it starts as a harried and nervous neutral, with its oceanic commerce under threat. However, its relations with all the combatants were fairly decent at this time. If Britain is really trying to align with the Triple Alliance, Berlin is in a great bargaining position and will demand a high price, quite possibly beyond what London is willing to pay. As a neutral, it can benefit from business opportunities with France and Russia losing access to overseas trade.

Berlin would be risking alot, a two-front ground war, by supporting Britain. Berlin, already highly distrustful of British free-riding may demand major financial and colonial pay-offs, carte blanche to impose new borders on France and Russia, and a token British troop commitment in order to join the war as an ally of Britain.

Italy would have to weigh the risk of getting mauled by the French versus prospects of African gains in deciding whether to join the British side.

The Ottomans and Persians would be in an interesting and dangerous position.

America's leanings could be pulled in a couple different directions too:

In favor of a pro-French & Russian attitude - historic friendliness from the Revolutionary War (France), French Republicanism (France), historic friendliness from Civil War and whole 19th century (Russia), resentment of British blockade, the Irish vote

In favor of a pro-British attitude - overwhelming business stakes, Britain's friendly attitude in Span-Am war, greater risk to American territory of fighting Britain, racial Anglo-Saxonism coming into vogue, French & Russian commerce-raiding especially if it includes a major submarine campaign and the the Jewish, Polish and possibly Italian vote domestically.

For the 1840 scenario -
that is inspired by the fact that in OTL, France supported the expansion of Muhammad Ali's influence in the Near East, while Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia all opposed him and supported the Ottomans. In addition to courting the disapproval of the powers by their support of Egypt, the French Prime Minister, Adolphe Thiers, also advocated breaking the "encirclement" of France by attacking the Rhineland. Strategically, this is taking on all of Europe, a la Napoleon, but I don't know enough about comparative order of battle, weapons techology, etc. to estimate if France had some decent reasons to think it could do well tactically and operationally despite the broad coalition of opponents it would have.

As for my map - "You forgot to include French Guiana in there." - Yes I accidentally covered it up with a text box. It is there in the basemap.

I think in that case those sort of minor territories would be on the table at the peace negotiations but this is very much the era of less than total war and bargaining.
Right and I don't know which ones might change hands, but the Algeria colony was only ten years old at this point, less consolidated and could be seen as a dangerous French lifeline to Muhammad Ali's Egypt....this would could place it in jeopardy.
 
Last edited:
Top