Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No "War of Independance"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by grognard View Post
    Let's "reaccent" the original point if we may.

    The U.S. remains British, Lousiana still becomes part of British North America during the Napoleonic Wars.
    Unless there aren't any Napoleonic wars, of course. The final financial breakdown of the ancien regime might have been a lot less severe without the American War of Independence, and a different French government might not have either sold or lost the American territories.

    No Mexican War because Britain has not reason to quarrel with Mexico. So British North America does not include Texas, California etc.
    Would there even be an independent Mexico? The independence movement in South America relies on two things: the benevolence of Britain, the biggest naval power, and the inability of Spain and Portugal to respond. No Napoleonic wars means that Spain and Portugal might have clung on more tenaciously. Even if there is an independent Mexico, it's not entirely improbable that the British would have come into conflict with it- the history of British India shows that there's always cause for a war.

    Would Britain try to seize Alaska from Russia during the Crimean War? I don't see Russia selling Alaska the Britain at any time.
    No, the sale is definitely motivated by a desire to court the US as an ally. As for the Crimea- which probably wouldn't happen, but some war over the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire might- I doubt anything would happen in Alaska, except perhaps an attack on any port the Russians might use for privateering in the Pacific.
    Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

    Comment


    • #17
      Spain wasn't strong enough to field a large overseas army to keep all of South America, even if it didn't suffer during the peninsula wars. And Britain would have loved a Spain without an empire, look at the trade possibilities.
      Ther French Revolution would still have happened, conditions were too harsh to stay status quo. And since Napoleon is a historic figure, I don't see the wars not occuring.

      Comment


      • #18
        the french revolution what if within this what if is fascinating.

        had the american revolution not played out, some of it's ideas would not have been used by the french revolution..... and let's not remember that if the king of france had been resolute, the french revolution could have been squashed quite easyly.

        had the american revolution happened but failed, french revolution might still have happened and propably republican france (and later Napoleon) perhaps would have tried to restart an american 2nd revolution against Britain... with perhaps American independence in, say, 1805?!!

        as for Napoleon, his rise was only possible because of the French revolution. with his ambition and skills (in leading men and artillery tactics) he might have been frustrated in the french royal army and left to become a mercenary in some other armies.. perhaps going to be one of the best american Generals of it's times! perhaps even becoming one of America's first presidents in the early 1800's !!!
        Napoleon would have loved America and americans would have loved the "little frenchman". he might have conquerred Canada, California and Mexico in the the early 1800's as well!! USA would speak french and one of the national dishes would be frog legs, snails and the local version of corsican cheese... (the possibilities, the possibilities...)
        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by grognard View Post
          Spain wasn't strong enough to field a large overseas army to keep all of South America, even if it didn't suffer during the peninsula wars.
          Not necessarily. The South American wars of independence rely on two things: discharged British soldiers, who need a war to fight, and a large stock of surplus muskets. Without the Napoleonic wars, you don't have either of these: you also don't have the semi-independent juntas that rule the colonies while Spain and Portugal concentrate on defending themselves.

          And Britain would have loved a Spain without an empire, look at the trade possibilities.
          Britain would also most likely have loved France and Germany without an empire, but they don't get involved there, do they? Only when there's a European war do they make grabs for colonies.

          Ther French Revolution would still have happened, conditions were too harsh to stay status quo. And since Napoleon is a historic figure, I don't see the wars not occuring.
          If the French monarchy stays solvent, there's no need to call the Estates-General. If there's no calling of the Estates-General, there's no national spark for revolution. There might have been isolated provincial attempts at revolution, but the French monarchy has been dealing with those for centuries. Furthermore, if the Constituent Assembly's proposals are accepted and Louis doesn't feel so threatened by talk of equality and fraternity that he flees, you have a constitutional monarchy in France.

          Hitler is a historic figure too, but if there had been a less harsh Treaty at Versailles, or even if Hindenburg and von Papen hadn't made him Chancellor in 1932, he might well have been a rather obscure Austrian politician, talked about in the same terms as Kapp.

          Originally posted by piero1971 View Post
          had the american revolution happened but failed, french revolution might still have happened and propably republican france (and later Napoleon) perhaps would have tried to restart an american 2nd revolution against Britain... with perhaps American independence in, say, 1805?!!
          The effect on Britain of a failed American revolution would have been startling. It would have drastically strengthened the hand of the Tories around the king, at the expense of more liberal factions within government. This would have made a second revolution more likely, since without a doubt they'd take a harder stance towards the disloyal colonists. If there isn't a war, however, and the issues are resolved through some sort of representative institution, then I imagine Republican France would have found it very hard to launch a second revolution.

          as for Napoleon, his rise was only possible because of the French revolution. with his ambition and skills (in leading men and artillery tactics) he might have been frustrated in the french royal army and left to become a mercenary in some other armies.. perhaps going to be one of the best american Generals of it's times! perhaps even becoming one of America's first presidents in the early 1800's !!!
          I can't for the life of me remember where, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that at one point, frustrated of advancement, Napoleon considers a career in the Royal Navy. It may be an idle daydream of his, or it might simply be that I've invented it, but I can't help thinking he might have made a very good frigate captain. Certainly, his emphasis on gunnery would have allowed him to fit right in. Another option for him would have been an advisor to the Ottoman armies, who inevitably look to foreign-born officers to train their troops.
          Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

          Comment


          • #20
            yes, bonaparte in the Ottoman service, to modernise their artillery arm is nota far fetched scenario at all!
            "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

            Comment


            • #21
              [QUOTE=robcraufurd;596264]


              Britain would also most likely have loved France and Germany without an empire, but they don't get involved there, do they? Only when there's a European war do they make grabs for colonies.

              END QUOTE

              Plassey etc weren't about countering the French in India? I just learned something new because I always thought that was part of the whole deal over there.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by grognard View Post
                Plassey etc weren't about countering the French in India? I just learned something new because I always thought that was part of the whole deal over there.
                Plassey is fought as part of the Seven Years War, a more general European conflict. Although the British are making substantial gains in India, capturing Pondicherry, the French administrative centre, in 1761, they hand them back in 1765 when the war ends. It's not so much about countering the French in India as Prussia and Britain countering French influence in Europe, with the colonies as secondary theatres of war- a continuation of the War of the Austrian Succession.

                As I said before, only when there's a European war do they make grabs for colonies. The experience of Cromwell's Western Design was a salutory lesson about the role of imperialism in European politics. At no point during the 18th century, with the possible exception of the War of Jenkins' Ear, do the British start a war in the colonies for commercial or imperial gain.
                Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X