WI: George II lives longer and no Peace of Paris

What if George II lives longer and Pitt gets his longer war, including a possible pre-emptive attack on Spain? How much longer would the Seven Years War go on, and what would the result be?
 
Not one response? I was hoping a few people who knew about the Seven Years' War might be able to have an idea of how much longer it could have gone...
 
What were the war aims? The Brits had already made such great gains in America and India, what justifies continuing the war? Carving up the Spanish Empire?
 
British learn of their success in the Philippines before the peace treaty.
British launch planned attack on New Orleans, takes Louisiana.
If still longer Britain takes Florida. leading to a lot of interesting negotiations at the eventual peace conference.
 
What were the war aims? The Brits had already made such great gains in America and India, what justifies continuing the war? Carving up the Spanish Empire?

I imagine someone like Pitt would constantly be adding new war aims. By the end of the war the British navy was supreme on the seas and could take a lot. The problem comes when the war debt just gets too big.

British learn of their success in the Philippines before the peace treaty.
British launch planned attack on New Orleans, takes Louisiana.
If still longer Britain takes Florida. leading to a lot of interesting negotiations at the eventual peace conference.

How much further would the British have gone? The Guianas would look like a promising target to consolidate control in the Caribbean, as would Puerto Rico. I'm guessing it's too early in history for Bolivia and the River Plate to be wanted by the British, but would like to get some other views.

I think the Philippines and Lousiana would be pretty big catches, but what would the British have to give back for it? Canada perhaps?

In my mind, Spain got off pretty easy in the peace conference, mainly because they were upholding commitments to France - if Britain pre-emptively attacked them, I can't see France being as generous.

Also, what effect on France's finances - bankruptcy ten years earlier?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I imagine someone like Pitt would constantly be adding new war aims. By the end of the war the British navy was supreme on the seas and could take a lot. The problem comes when the war debt just gets too big.



How much further would the British have gone? The Guianas would look like a promising target to consolidate control in the Caribbean, as would Puerto Rico. I'm guessing it's too early in history for Bolivia and the River Plate to be wanted by the British, but would like to get some other views.

I think the Philippines and Lousiana would be pretty big catches, but what would the British have to give back for it? Canada perhaps?

In my mind, Spain got off pretty easy in the peace conference, mainly because they were upholding commitments to France - if Britain pre-emptively attacked them, I can't see France being as generous.

Also, what effect on France's finances - bankruptcy ten years earlier?

I love how all of a sudden a success in a minor theater (Canada) turns into Britain somehow able to conduct amphibious operations in a region where it has never succeeded at them (i.e. South America) - it's not a fluke, the "supreme" royal navy failed consistently throughout the entire 18th century at doing anything of any worth in south america apart from nabbing colonies which nobody even cared to defend. The fluke was Havana. The royal navy had a strong position, but extending the war too far could very well have led to some serious reversals, especially if Britain was to attempt a second go at Jenkins' ear.
 
I love how all of a sudden a success in a minor theater (Canada) turns into Britain somehow able to conduct amphibious operations in a region where it has never succeeded at them (i.e. South America) - it's not a fluke, the "supreme" royal navy failed consistently throughout the entire 18th century at doing anything of any worth in south america apart from nabbing colonies which nobody even cared to defend. The fluke was Havana. The royal navy had a strong position, but extending the war too far could very well have led to some serious reversals, especially if Britain was to attempt a second go at Jenkins' ear.

I'm not claiming the British would have conquered them - just that they might have had a go - and I actually said that I agree it was too early in history for Britain to want to get places in South America outside the Guianas, mainly based on the assumption their naval power can't be projected that far.

As for successful attacks, they had Cuba, Guadeloupe, Senegal, Martinique and the Philippines. I also believe the French and Spanish navies had been severely weakened by the end of the war. I would like to hear about your views on reversals though - where do you think these may have happened?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I'm not claiming the British would have conquered them - just that they might have had a go - and I actually said that I agree it was too early in history for Britain to want to get places in South America outside the Guianas, mainly based on the assumption their naval power can't be projected that far.

As for successful attacks, they had Cuba, Guadeloupe, Senegal, Martinique and the Philippines. I also believe the French and Spanish navies had been severely weakened by the end of the war. I would like to hear about your views on reversals though - where do you think these may have happened?

They had Havana, the Philippines were lightly defended compared to the rest of the spanish empire, apart for Martinique and Barbados, nobody really bothered to defend the lesser antilles, and Senegal consisted of three slave trading stations in the suburbs of Dakar.

Any land assault on continental Spanish america would pretty much be doomed imo. Any extended war will also weaken their position in Cuba as the occupation force will be decimated by disease.
 
They had Havana, the Philippines were lightly defended compared to the rest of the spanish empire, apart for Martinique and Barbados, nobody really bothered to defend the lesser antilles, and Senegal consisted of three slave trading stations in the suburbs of Dakar.

Any land assault on continental Spanish america would pretty much be doomed imo. Any extended war will also weaken their position in Cuba as the occupation force will be decimated by disease.

Brits should be able to take New Orleans I'd think, and with that all of Louisiana falls. You disagree?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Do the British have the men for all of this?

The British Army started the was with an establishment of 53 battalions of infantry (paper strength of about 45,000), by 1763, it had risen to 150 battalions including highlanders and three single-battalion regiments of guards and colonial militias (total paper strength about 128,000, effective strength far under that).

The thing is that while all of this is going on, most of said establishment is in Europe, for obvious reasons. The colonials were really rather terribly supplied and could hardly afford to campaign abroad, but an invasion of Lousiana could work.
 
The thing is that while all of this is going on, most of said establishment is in Europe, for obvious reasons. The colonials were really rather terribly supplied and could hardly afford to campaign abroad, but an invasion of Lousiana could work.

Presumably Southern Louisiana would be more valuable than Canada? If the British had to give one back, which would it be?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
New France; it's a more sparse area.

But I'm gonna ask how the fur trade fared in the mid 18th century.

The fur trade was still pretty huge, a handover of Canada would leave France in control of something like most of Ontario and Quebec, which is not as big as all of new france but still pretty big and pretty rich. That's assuming the british keep the Illinois country.
 
The fur trade was still pretty huge, a handover of Canada would leave France in control of something like most of Ontario and Quebec, which is not as big as all of new france but still pretty big and pretty rich. That's assuming the british keep the Illinois country.

It would all depend on whether Britain considers its other gains worth dropping for the entirety of New France, I assume.
 
I was imagining a settlement of something like the British get everything South and West of Lake Huron to the Mississippi River, plus New Orleans. The French keep the rest.
 
Top