miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,285
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 4, 2023 10:25:49 GMT
This assumes eonomics and social pressures do not reach criticality until 1840=> 1850? Not as far as I can tell. Remember what was causing the American Revolution was British government interference and taxation of the the previously laIssez faire triangle trade. Add to that the Royalist French government seeking any opportunity for revenge after the Seven Years War. In effect, you postulate to give American slavocrats, and New England smugglers and the FRENCH 20 more years to get annoyed with the mostly static British along with ongoing American and FRENCH industrialization, internal birthrates, and vastly improved French and American technology. Kick everything off around 1800 when the Americans are the 3rd and the French are the 2nd more industrialized nations in existence, with combined populations of 6 and 18 million respectively against 8 million Britons. A Royalist France will not have Austria Hungary, Russia, and Sweden and Prussia against her in coalition after coalition after coalition, not with a Bourbon trying to pull the British down. Remember the actual coalition that actually made the American Revolution possible? We do not even need Napoleon to make it all work. . The Seven Years War is what sent the Ancien Regime into deep debt but French entry into the American Revolution is what determined that the fall of the Ancien Regime would be sooner than later. If the French never enter on the American side then it would probably be in the first two decades of the 19th century - potentially during another Franco-British war - that the debt builds up to the point where the monarchy goes into crisis mode. I grant that your explanation makes sense. However I thought I addressed the same time period and suggested a possible outcome based on historical trends that would be in play if the economic dislocations and heavy taxation of the French people, caused by the "premature" American revolution and the French alliance had not happned. Rochambeau and Comte de Grasse were not cheap, nor was all that FRENCH armament that equipped the Continemtal line to the tune of a couple hundred of field guns and 15,000 muskets and sets of uniforms and several hundreds of technical advisors (officers and sergeants which American historians conveniently IGNORE.). By 1800 or later, it can be argued that the Americans in the colonies would have the means and wherewithal to build complete frigates (which they did) and make the tools for armies (Barbary Wars) which they did, and that a potentlal French alliance would be less onerous for the French as the Americans would have a better industrial base on this side of the pond to support French expeditionary forces. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,347 
Likes: 11,984
|
Post by stevep on Feb 4, 2023 12:18:38 GMT
I mean to be fair, John Adams was part of OTL's Staten Island Peace Conference delegation alongside Benjamin Franklin and Edward Rutledge. Also, without French entry into the American Revolution, I would imagine that their own Revolution is delayed perhaps by a generation or so. This assumes eonomics and social pressures do not reach criticality until 1840=> 1850? Not as far as I can tell. Remember what was causing the American Revolution was British government interference and taxation of the the previously laIssez faire triangle trade.
Nothing to do with the triangle trade at all. Similarly trade within the British empire - as with every other great power was highly protectionist in nature, which benefited interests across the empire including in the colonies. It was only from the late 1840's that Britain - pretty much alone - became obsessed with the delusion of laissez faire policies. It was only really from the 1980's that the US started following that route.
The question was whether the colonies should make a fiscal contribution towards their own defence and a significant minority became violent over the issue and later - partly due to a period of very bad British diplomacy - got aid and then full military support from France, Spain and the Netherlands. If the prime rebel army of the time is quickly crushed then a lot is up in the air and you could have continued resistance at a high level or largely restricted to a few fanatics who are probably detested by the bulk of the population due to the problems they cause for everybody.
As well as the false assumption above that assumes a lot of things. France was making progress and the revolutionary and Napoleonic period cost them a lot in terms of disruption but did also remove a corrupt and disruptive ruling elite that was far more powerful and reactionary that the dominant groups in either Britain or the colonies. They were making some significant progress in aspects of military technology but that was as much despite the current system as because of it.
Depending on how the revolution in the colonies ends up here Britain could have a reactionary spell as OTL - although noticeably less so than the ancient regime in France or be markedly more reformist without the suppression of the reform movement that was active from ~1760ish OTL.
The industrialization of the colonies is likely to be delayed compared to OTL because they will be in the same market zone as Britain itself and hence will have to compete with the rapidly developing British industrial centres rather than be behind protectionist walls so your assumptions there are likely to be wrong.
PS - Forgot to say that the French establishment did want revenge against Britain after the 7YW losses but if they don't get involved here that could easily come from another dynastic clash which is likely to see further defeats for them and Spain. Especially since a colonial combination still loyal to the empire would want to expand into what's now Spanish western Louisiana among other places possibly.
If France was to become as powerful as your assuming then you will get significant opposition to it seeking to dominant Europe again, which is what your actually suggesting.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,347
Likes: 11,984
|
Post by stevep on Feb 4, 2023 12:21:26 GMT
That would be an idiotic scenario. Both in terms of the task of holding such a large and distant population by force, which would have been against Britain's interests as well and many of its leaders knew that and in the idea of using sepoy's for such a task. It was only ~ 1840/50 that Indian forces started being deployed outside India and that's unlikely to change, especially since its only really ~1800-10 that Britain emerged as the dominant power in India. Well, the TL goes until the 1980s, so the sepoys aren't deployed immediately.
Don't know about you, but I liked the GURPS AE scenarios. Much more than those from Infinite Worlds. I like long scenarios with many original ideas. Sure, they don't care much about the butterfly effect, but then again, few people do.
I don't know them other than occasional references such as this but I find that scenario - while possibly suitable/required for a specific RPG - not exactly rational or likely.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,347
Likes: 11,984
|
Post by stevep on Feb 4, 2023 12:24:19 GMT
In the end, that was just an army and new ones can be raised as happened historically all the time. Of course, it makes for a nice story that everything was balanced on the edge of a knife but a small army being destroyed doesn't change the fact on the ground that there was a large population there that was willing to take up arms because of their opposition to the current arrangement. It also doesn't do anything about any guerilla movement and the like. So, I personally think that peace talks would still fail and there would be ongoing fighting. At some point, a new army will be raised as well, so all this just delays things by a few years.
Its a possibility but so is a settlement that eases both sides. There was a significant loyalist population in the colonies and many who just wanted to get on with their lives so if a clear defeat - which would at the least delay French aid to the rebels for a while - followed by the compromise - and remembering that Britain had been seeking a compromise throughout the period since 1763 - then its also possible that some lasting agreement is obtained.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,285
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 4, 2023 12:41:54 GMT
Nothing to do with the triangle trade at all... I might suggest that your version of American history is in error. We threw you out because we were tired of your mercantilist imperialist practices against our trade. That TRADE was based on a triangle of Caribbean molasses, African slaves and New England rum.   Whose signature do YOU see on the Declaration of Independence that is most prominent? As for the rest of my false assumptions? (^^^) 1797 USS Constitution. And ever hear of the Gribeauval system? How about canned food? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,654
Likes: 45,705
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 4, 2023 12:51:53 GMT
Nothing to do with the triangle trade at all... I might suggest that your version of American history is in error. We threw you out because we were tired of your mercantilist imperialist practices against our trade. That TRADE was based on a triangle of Caribbean molasses, African slaves and New England rum. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,347
Likes: 11,984
|
Post by stevep on Feb 4, 2023 13:09:58 GMT
Assuming there was a settlement after the destruction of Washington's army then there are two possible medium term sources of tension between the mainland colonies and the central government. a) The restriction on further expansion into Indian owned lands. While there was still plenty of land for the colonists east of those territories land speculation, the development of large estates and racism prompted resentment of the restriction and often brutal attacks on the Indian populations after the revolution.
I suspect given the political and economic power of the colonists the act will only delay the western expansion of settlement and probably not for long. Hopefully this will be less bloody than OTL but a lot would depend on the details.
b) When feeling in Britain moves against the slave trade and later slavery itself. Both actions are likely to be delayed TTL because of the importance of slavery to many of the southern and central colonies. However I suspect it will still occur and a lot would depend on the details. Also of course northern interests would be affected as many of them were involved in the trade. This could cause a major conflict between Britain and the colonies pretty much as a whole or, with slavery itself between Britain and the southern colonies with the northern ones either largely neutral or supporting Britain.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,285
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 4, 2023 13:16:04 GMT
Hunh?John Hancock.I might suggest that your version of American history is in error. We threw you out because we were tired of your mercantilist imperialist practices against our trade. That TRADE was based on a triangle of Caribbean molasses, African slaves and New England rum. True, but monumental historical errors like Steve made here bear correction. The Americans in 1776 threw the British out because the British interfered with our choice in how to trade / interact with other nations. And we still had to remind them as late as the Falkland War to curb their transgressions (Thatcher threatened the use of nuclear weapons and we told her where that would lead with us. M. ). Let me quote. And let me quote the American INDICTMENT:In other words, the 1776 Americans were the first to say enough of the British and their imperialist pretensions. It may have taken longer for the rest of the "British Empire" to get with it, but they followed the first historical lessons and removed the foreign British rulers from their lands and asserted their own rights to run their own affairs their own ways as has happened many times before and since the American Revolution and not just to the British and Americans. If some people do not like that history, I cannot help it. It HAPPENED. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,654
Likes: 45,705
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 4, 2023 14:06:35 GMT
Okay, lets keep it historical and not say we threw you out, current generations who live are not to be blame for what their ancestors did. True, but monumental historical errors like Steve made here bear correction. The Americans in 1776 threw the British out because the British interfered with our choice in how to trade / interact with other nations. And we still had to remind them as late as the Falkland War to curb their transgressions (Thatcher threatened the use of nuclear weapons and we told her where that would lead with us. M. ). Let me quote. And let me quote the American INDICTMENT:In other words, the 1776 Americans were the first to say enough of the British and their imperialist pretensions. It may have taken longer for the rest of the "British Empire" to get with it, but they followed the first historical lessons and removed the foreign British rulers from their lands and asserted their own rights to run their own affairs their own ways as has happened many times before and since the American Revolution and not just to the British and Americans. If some people do not like that history, I cannot help it. It HAPPENED. |
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Feb 7, 2023 3:18:22 GMT
I also read somewhere that the war might not end immediately even if much of the Continental Army gets knocked out. In that case, the British might capture all of Manhattan Island (New York City) and then proceed to move onto Philadelphia (the seat of the Second Continental Congress). Does that make sense?
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,285
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 7, 2023 5:39:43 GMT
I also read somewhere that the war might not end immediately even if much of the Continental Army gets knocked out. In that case, the British might capture all of Manhattan Island (New York City) and then proceed to move onto Philadelphia (the seat of the Second Continental Congress). Does that make sense? See MAP.  Look at New Jersey.  In the 1770s the colony of New Jersey was the armpit of New England. Roads were terrible, half of it was swamps, and the only way to get anywhere was by BOAT. If you were British, (Clinton and Howe) you would snug up in New York and attend fancy warm cozy dress balls and let the Americans freeze their tails off and die of pneumonia. The Israelis have Masada? We have VALLEY FORGE. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,347
Likes: 11,984
|
Post by stevep on Feb 7, 2023 13:17:44 GMT
I also read somewhere that the war might not end immediately even if much of the Continental Army gets knocked out. In that case, the British might capture all of Manhattan Island (New York City) and then proceed to move onto Philadelphia (the seat of the Second Continental Congress). Does that make sense? See MAP. Look at New Jersey. In the 1770s the colony of New Jersey was the armpit of New England. Roads were terrible, half of it was swamps, and the only way to get anywhere was by BOAT. If you were British, (Clinton and Howe) you would snug up in New York and attend fancy warm cozy dress balls and let the Americans freeze their tails off and die of pneumonia. The Israelis have Masada? We have VALLEY FORGE.
Which is why as the map showed Howe could well again move by sea to reach Philadelphia. Or with no real defensive force the rebels might just desert it and seek to retreat into the wilder areas. Which of course isolates them from supplies and other resources so weakens them further. Surprise attacks such as at Germantown could still occur if the British forces get complacent but are less likely to succeed or have the same impact.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470
Likes: 4,285
|
Post by miletus12 on Feb 7, 2023 14:05:34 GMT
See MAP. Look at New Jersey. In the 1770s the colony of New Jersey was the armpit of New England. Roads were terrible, half of it was swamps, and the only way to get anywhere was by BOAT. If you were British, (Clinton and Howe) you would snug up in New York and attend fancy warm cozy dress balls and let the Americans freeze their tails off and die of pneumonia. The Israelis have Masada? We have VALLEY FORGE.
Which is why as the map showed Howe could well again move by sea to reach Philadelphia. Or with no real defensive force the rebels might just desert it and seek to retreat into the wilder areas. Which of course isolates them from supplies and other resources so weakens them further. Surprise attacks such as at Germantown could still occur if the British forces get complacent but are less likely to succeed or have the same impact.
1. He tried. 2. He could not stay. Why? In those days, Philadelphia, which is a seaport, ICED UP.   Those by the way are Rhode Islanders; i.e., the first Marines. Today...  It's So Cold That The Delaware River Has Frozen Over (PHOTOS) | Yardley ...As a side note, before his grandsons threw the business away, Cramp and Sons built many of the ships that Commodore Schley used to destroy the Spanish fleet at Santiago de Cuba. That is near where the modern Philadelphia Navy Yard was / is. Call it the birthplace of the New Steel Navy. |
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 201
Likes: 257
|
Post by belushitd on Feb 7, 2023 15:51:52 GMT
Illegal settlement west of the Appalachians are likely to be very few in the short term as such could only really exist with the consent of the local Indian tribes but its likely with the greater political power of the settlers in the colonies compared to the locals that this would change in a generation or two at most. Hopefully London could supply some constraint over the resulting expansion which might mean significantly more of the Indian populations survive compared to OTL.
I think you may be a tad bit mistaken about the illegal settlement west of the Appalachians. web.viu.ca/davies/H320/population.colonies.htmThat link shows that by 1770, there were an estimated 15,700 people in Kentucky. 10 years later, 6 of them prior to the revolution, it was 45,000. With or without consent of the local tribes, it was going to happen. The settlers, in general, were far better at staying alive than the Indians were at killing them. Yes, there were occasional massacres, but the majority of the massacres were settlers massacring Indians, not the other way around. Please note, I can't vouch for the numbers. Its the first thing my google search came up with that had actual numbers rather than a wall o' text, so... your mileage may vary. Belushi TD |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,347
Likes: 11,984
|
Post by stevep on Feb 7, 2023 18:28:51 GMT
Illegal settlement west of the Appalachians are likely to be very few in the short term as such could only really exist with the consent of the local Indian tribes but its likely with the greater political power of the settlers in the colonies compared to the locals that this would change in a generation or two at most. Hopefully London could supply some constraint over the resulting expansion which might mean significantly more of the Indian populations survive compared to OTL.
I think you may be a tad bit mistaken about the illegal settlement west of the Appalachians. web.viu.ca/davies/H320/population.colonies.htmThat link shows that by 1770, there were an estimated 15,700 people in Kentucky. 10 years later, 6 of them prior to the revolution, it was 45,000. With or without consent of the local tribes, it was going to happen. The settlers, in general, were far better at staying alive than the Indians were at killing them. Yes, there were occasional massacres, but the majority of the massacres were settlers massacring Indians, not the other way around. Please note, I can't vouch for the numbers. Its the first thing my google search came up with that had actual numbers rather than a wall o' text, so... your mileage may vary. Belushi TD
Thanks. That was a lot higher than I was thinking. Basically going by the Ohio region and further west where it took the military to clear a path for settlement to occur. If its that high in Kentucky by 1780 then they probably outnumber the surviving Indians in the same region.
Steve
|
|
