What if, in 1770, France had offered its support to Spain against Britain, and Spain had gone to war with Britain over the Falklands?
An early Falklands War?
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
well, considering it had only been aboout 4 years since britain went to war with both countries and won, I doubt they would want to try it again because during the last (7 years) war britain got all of canada.
I think (as long as the spanish are smart) they would avoid this conflict because simply the english ruled the seas and so they would easily begin to annex spanish holdings around the globe.
Short answer, spain wouldn't risk their empire crumbling before them (even tho it would in about 40-50 years) over the sparley populated Falklands.
I think (as long as the spanish are smart) they would avoid this conflict because simply the english ruled the seas and so they would easily begin to annex spanish holdings around the globe.
Short answer, spain wouldn't risk their empire crumbling before them (even tho it would in about 40-50 years) over the sparley populated Falklands.
Spain would have gone to war over them, they were prepared to, but only if France was together with them. And the point isn't that the Spanish could win, which they could, anything can happen in war. But the point is, could this possibly set up numerous wars over the Falklands throughout history?
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
Well, I have to disagree about spain winning; their time was up.
But I do agree about the Falkland Wars idea.
If spain goes to war in 1770 with Britain, they would probably loose.
which would lead to another Falklands war during the french revolution, Napoleonic Era.
And then once the spanish empire falls Argentina backed by a coalition of other spanish speaking nations (much like the war of the triple alliance) would go to war with britain again... and loose as Pax Brittania had been imposed upon the world. This would probably be the last falklands war until after WWII when Great Britain is suverly weakened, and then I could see another war in the 80s as OTL.
Sorry if you disagree about England winning but after the seven years war and before at least WWI no one was going to beat Britain (except the yanks in their revolution)
But I am sort of biased about Britain.
I was just pointing out that the Spanish do have the clear advantage in that they are the closest to the Islands, while the nearest British territory was Saint Helena. The supply line may favor the British, and if they do win, to rectify this, the British may attempt to take some Spanish territory in South America.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
well, the spanish do have an advantage i'll give you that. But the british morale would probably be up having just won a world war.
i'm not saying the british could take it as easily as they retook the falkands in the 1980s war, but ultimately the british always won; even when they lost.
If its just Britain vs Spain and France (if you meant that the french were to join in the war) then it could probably erupt into another large war with Portugal on englands side (as always) and more allies that follow.
I don't think the British can afford another war like that without sparking an even earlier Revolt in the American colonies.
It would only be about five years till the shooting starts in Boston anyways. That's not much of a difference.
I can just imagine the look on John Hancock's face when some British tax gatherer tells him that George III needs American money to help him conquer... the Falklands?
I don't see why it would spark a revolt in the American colonies. Unless they decided to raise taxes in the American colonies to pay for the war, which they definitely wouldn't do, having pretty much given up on taxing the colonies to actually collect any money at this point.
The North administration isn't going to be stupid enough to try and sort out their American issues while fighting a war against Spain at the same time.
.
Last edited:
I said might. But war could break out if the French attempted to provoke Colonial radicals.
That's not going to be enough to start a full-scale rebellion. The Colonial radicals are few in number and even most of them aren't eager for a complete break with Britain at this point. And even the smallest evidence that the French are behind it is going to hurt their cause, not help it. The British administration needs to do something to really drive New England into a frenzy before the revolution can start.
Hmmm, I guess if Britain started losing and the war drags on, colonists might get angry that their blood and treasure is being spent on a war over some stupid islands, and revolt then.
The rebellion is already in the works, since the mid-1760s at least. There's no formal break by 1770 but the idea is being openly discussed and shooting is only a few years away. Since one of the causes behind the American Revolution was the British effort to recoup military expenditures (notably form the French and Indian War), it seems reasonable to suggest that another expensive campaign at this time might hasten or at least ensure the violent break.
I actually think the ARW is less likely if another war with France and Spain starts. The British will be more disposed to compromise to focus on their main problem (as they later did with Quebec), the radicals will likely be seen as traitors during wartime and their voices marginalised, and there will be the chance for the colonialists to grab control of New Orleans.
As for supply lines, we're working at sea here, and Britain has the naval advantage, as both France and Spain lost most of their navy a few years earlier. Britain also has a lot more ability to tolerate high debt burdens (see the Napoleonic wars). The British would not only win in the Falklands, but they have a realistic opportunity to grab Buenos Aires and Montevideo, which had been long term ambitions. The locals repulsed the British in 1807 in OTL, but this is forty years before with a much smaller population locally.
As for supply lines, we're working at sea here, and Britain has the naval advantage, as both France and Spain lost most of their navy a few years earlier. Britain also has a lot more ability to tolerate high debt burdens (see the Napoleonic wars). The British would not only win in the Falklands, but they have a realistic opportunity to grab Buenos Aires and Montevideo, which had been long term ambitions. The locals repulsed the British in 1807 in OTL, but this is forty years before with a much smaller population locally.
You mean the British have a chance to grab New Orleans, the Indian Reserve is in the way of the American colonialists
And a British Argentina could be a very likely outcome of the first war, which isn't going to help end the conflict for the future.
Faeelin
Banned
Which is of course why the French backed down. What makes them risk their empire for some islands in the Atlantic?
Their Empire isn't in danger in the Falklands and South America. Im not even sure where they would fight the British.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
Simply because they're French. And as much as everyone hates war, I think that the Brits and the French hated each other even more.
Weren't they at war almost constantly until napoleon?
Faeelin
Banned
Santo Domingo is. Their fleet would combine with the Spanish.
The French, not being idiots (unlike the British of this period) pushed for Spain to back down, conscious that the colonial troubles would continue to boil over and that France needed to reform and rearm.
Well it wouldn't be that hard to find a POD to make the French dumber and have the war occur. Actually imagining the English takeover of Hispaniola would be pretty interesting, because the native White population of Colons might actually last as an integral part of the island. Albeit under English control, they might survive as the favored population of the island.