WI: France and Spain do not get involved in the American Revolutionary War

What effects would France and Spain not spending huge sums of money on the war have? Let's assume they still covertly give the rebels weapons and loans, but not to the point to seriously hurt their own economies. Would Americans still manage to win their independence? When and how? Would the French revolution still happen? If so, when and how?
 
If France and Spain only provide some loans and weapons and they do not get involved (I assume this goes with the Dutch too), then the British are favored to win this war. The USA's allies during the war were able to tie down British forces that would've gone to putting down the rebellion, but they had to defend their holdings from the French, Spanish, and Dutch. Furthermore, without the French Navy at Yorktown, which allowed the American-French forces to defeat Lord Cornwallis' forces and prevent him from retreating.

Using Wiki for the numbers, on average the USA's army were around 40,000 troops (with 200,000 serving over the course of the war), and the British had 48,000 at its peak in the USA and 121,000 globally in 1781. Furthermore, the British had the help of 25,000 loyalists (total served), 2,365 Hanoverians (total served), 29,875 German Mercenaries (total served), and 13,000 Native American allies.

However, one problem still stands and that is the fact that for many British, they did not want to attack their fellow man who were from the 13 Colonies. However, even then, the British could out last the USA. During the 5 years of fighting, the new Government was broke as the new states were not sending their money to congress. Robert Morris, a wealthy American, ended up funding the war but he couldn't do it forever. If the Americans and French didn't defeat the British at Yorktown, they would've lost because it was not possible to fund the Army. Not every soldier was being paid, but this couldn't last. Only the most patriotic Americans would keep fighting without pay.

Even if we assume that everything plays out mostly the same, Cornwallis would've escaped from Yorktown instead of being defeated. Cornwallis' defeat is what ended any chances of the rebellion being put down. His 9,000 troops would've been saved, and the British would play it off as a victory like they did centuries later at the Battle of Dunkirk. There might be a lull during the war (Henry Clinton would likely sit in New York), but there is no way that George Washington would attack New York. Such a battle would dash any chances of the Americans winning the war. The war will become a stalemate as the British draw up new plans and bring in new forces to fight against the Americans. Eventually the USA's new army will shrink in size as Washington is unable to pay his troops or they die off from sickness from the winter setting in. With the fresh new troops, the British could continue their attack in Spring and put pressure on them until they eventually cracked from lack of funds and supplies.

(Extra Credits. Watch all Parts)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history...nd-maps/populations-great-britain-and-america

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

https://web.archive.org/web/20130927073929/http://orbat.com/site/uk_orbats/files/6/The British Army 1775.pdf
 
The British and Americans come to a modus vivendi after Saratoga after another year or so of protracted warfare, and then gang up on the Bourbons.
 
How far along would things go in negotiations? I am wondering if there will be feelings of resentment against the Spanish or French. How do you guys think the administrative situation will be in the Colonies? Local assemblies all suspended or abolished, outside of areas where there were enough Loyalists of distinction around in order to keep a lif on things? Even if the British sent in loads of Redcoats and Hessians, I see them relying on Loyalists to a large extent. Not for ending the war perhaps, but they will need them for keeping the peace. The British government is liable to play things off as a bunch of radicals hiring drunken ruffians (probably will say they were Irish) and tricking or threatening their neighbors so as to conscript them to fight the Crown. Just imagine, as I imagine a large portion of captured Continentals mind end up Transported or something.

It is going to be tricky for the Brits as they wouldn't it to seem like they are slaughtering tens of thousands who were fighting against German mercenaries or who the Whigs might argue were defending their liberty during a confusing time when everyone was grabbing for guns to defend themselves. Might be their is a guerilla war, though passive-aggressiveness might be more common. Just so long as the British keep things so colonial militia, Redcoats, and Hessians don't fuck things up by some real or imagined atrocities or misdemeanors. Not a place like Canada for Patriots/Rebels to move to en masse like the Loyalists did, outside of them moving over the Appalachians. Would be difficult for the New Englanders certainly, both due to location, lifestyle, and because they would be killed by tribes allied with the British who don't want these people invading their land.
 
Even if things go really well for the Americans the best they can hope for is a stalemate in the North and The South. Without French troops I can't see Cornwallis being besieged let alone defeated - but equally can't see him eradicating the rebels from the South.

Britain has a tendency to go for consolidation after a failed rebellion (Canada, India, South Africa) and I wonder if there may be move towards a Kingdom of North America, perhaps with its own Parliament along the lines of the Irish model. Fairly fanciful I know but an interesting what-if.
 
With only French/Spanish/Dutch aid, the Patriots are in serious trouble. They don't have the ability to maintain standing armies for too long, and are going to have to get aggressive to shorten the war, unlike OTL, where they fought not to lose as soon as F/S/D gave them the ability to play it that way. A major loss, or running out of supplies/money, morale crumbles, loyalists come out of the woodwork, those on the fence slide toward the loyalists, and 'diehard' patriots suddenly aren't so diehard.

The British could still blow it, but the war is theirs to lose. Most likely is a compromise. After Saratoga, the Brits realize it's going to cost a lot to crush the rebellion, and with a loss/crumble, the Patriots realize they can't win outright.
 
What effects would France and Spain not spending huge sums of money on the war have? Let's assume they still covertly give the rebels weapons and loans, but not to the point to seriously hurt their own economies. Would Americans still manage to win their independence? When and how? Would the French revolution still happen? If so, when and how?
People tend to overlook how important the control of the Misissipi was in the US revolution. Specially for the distribution of weapons,money,ammonition and clothes to the Americans. If Spain doesn't get involved that alone would be a massive blow. The action of 9 Agust 1780 is also usually overlooked which was a logistic and financial blow to Britain that greatly hurted the war effort.
The Franco-Spanish-Dutch fleet was really necessary for the Americans to even have a chance all things considered,as the threat of an invasion of England scared the the British more than losing the 13 colonies.
 
In addition to the excellent points above, once France declared war the British started withdrawing forces from the colonies. They evacuated Philadelphia, Newport, and Ticonderoga and started sending their forces in the colonies to the Caribbean. The orders to evacuate Philadelphia were specifically linked to finding the troops to send to the Caribbean.

So at a minimum the British hold on to Philadelphia and Newport.

One interesting side effect is that if the British don't evacuate Philadelphia, Benedict Arnold is never appointed military governor of Philadelphia and never meets Peggy Shippen (sp?), which is what set him down the course he took IOTL. However, with the war stalemated the British will likely find other Arnold style turncoats. And they also have the troops to move on the Hudson Highlands without Arnold's health.

However, the problem of paying the army might work out a little better because IOTL there was a limit on French subsidies as the money was needed for the French army and navy. OTOH, one massive butterfly is that the Bavarian Succession crisis of 1778 turns into a full blown continental European war with France getting involved, so the colonists may lose the French subsidies altogether.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The British and Americans come to a modus vivendi after Saratoga after another year or so of protracted warfare, and then gang up on the Bourbons.

What would this deal consist of and how does each side justify it? In going after the Bourbons, what do the re-federated Anglo-American target most? New Orleans/Louisiana, Oregon, Cuba, Hispaniola & Puerto Rico?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OTOH, one massive butterfly is that the Bavarian Succession crisis of 1778 turns into a full blown continental European war with France getting involved, so the colonists may lose the French subsidies altogether.

Would France actually want *either* Prussia or Austria to win? If so, which one? If not, what will France be fighting for on the continent?
 
"Would France actually want *either* Prussia or Austria to win? If so, which one? If not, what will France be fighting for on the continent?"

France was allied with Austria at the time.
 
"Would France actually want *either* Prussia or Austria to win? If so, which one? If not, what will France be fighting for on the continent?"

France was allied with Austria at the time.

But the french court & most ministers were austrophobes, now offering france some parts of the s. nederlands might change their tune though and gbr is too busy to protest.
 
I've read that France was in the anti-Austria (in regards to them gaining Bavaria) crowd. I doubt they're backing Austria to the tune of turning a fairly low key affair into a continental war. They likely do exactly what they did OTL: let Prussia and Russia do the active opposition while letting Austria know they are not backing the play.
 
There are so many butterflies, but I think the most interesting option is the possibility of a much less brutal fight.

So Cornwallis runs away - but if you take into account what @Carl Clausewitz said about people not wanting to fight each other, combined with the harsh winter - Britain can fight with food. I don't mean, have the food and can fight - I literally mean, go up to 'unfriendly' towns and offer food in exchange for a garrison and if the 'rebels' hand themselves in they'll be fed, sent back to [Insert Suitable HQ Here] for the remainder of the war. (Excluding the ringleaders of course, they'll get shot).

With secure and open ports, and less worry about France, larger forces can be brought in, and can focus on securing granaries, and other stores to simply deny food to the rebels, and bring towns onside (With the added advantage of forcibly reorganising the colonies at the same time).

I'd stand by the need to create an British North American Parliament to prevent this happening again (with the rebels disqualified from standing), which would certainly change what is considered for the Acts of Union in 1800. I wonder, would a Post-ARW BNAP include the Caribbean and Canada?
 
I have read about the horrible conditions in the prisons ships that the British used for their American prisoners. I do not know if this was done but I would offer a parole to all American prisoners who agreed not to fight until notified of their exchange. They could go home and recover. I would then announce that any American rebels who surrender would be given the same parole. This could slowly drain off Washington's army as time went on.
 
I have read about the horrible conditions in the prisons ships that the British used for their American prisoners. I do not know if this was done but I would offer a parole to all American prisoners who agreed not to fight until notified of their exchange. They could go home and recover. I would then announce that any American rebels who surrender would be given the same parole. This could slowly drain off Washington's army as time went on.

Especially when their food supplies are running out. If getting your meal is as simple as a night-time desertion and walking into town waving something white? Only the most fervent will stay.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
But the french court & most ministers were austrophobes, now offering france some parts of the s. nederlands might change their tune though and gbr is too busy to protest.

Why was this? A passionate attachment to keeping Bavaria around as a potential ally? Just force of habit and tradition despite the formal switch to a Habsburg alliance in the 1750s and royal intermarriage?
 
There are so many butterflies, but I think the most interesting option is the possibility of a much less brutal fight.

So Cornwallis runs away - but if you take into account what @Carl Clausewitz said about people not wanting to fight each other, combined with the harsh winter - Britain can fight with food. I don't mean, have the food and can fight - I literally mean, go up to 'unfriendly' towns and offer food in exchange for a garrison and if the 'rebels' hand themselves in they'll be fed, sent back to [Insert Suitable HQ Here] for the remainder of the war. (Excluding the ringleaders of course, they'll get shot).

Why would the towns not have food? Weren't the colonies able to feed themselves? Or was it that the Continental army couldn't afford to buy food?
 
Why would the towns not have food? Weren't the colonies able to feed themselves? Or was it that the Continental army couldn't afford to buy food?
My understanding is that the winter was quite harsh, food supplies were a bit chaotic (and would be moreso without the Mississipi as mentioned by earlier posters), and so food is a good target for quelling the revolt.
 
Why was this? A passionate attachment to keeping Bavaria around as a potential ally? Just force of habit and tradition despite the formal switch to a Habsburg alliance in the 1750s and royal intermarriage?

The latter of the 2, taking on the House of Austria has been of immense benefit to the House & Kingdom of France since acquiring the 3 bishoprics in 1551. The seven years war proved a costly aberration in French foreign policy and weakened any perceived benefit of an alliance with Austria. And the royal marriage itself in hindsight appears doomed from the start, nor did Marie Antoinette appear to have little to any influence and if anything went wrong she's the perfect scapegoat (not to say she's an angel but still)
 
Top