In 1750, Britain and France agree to send a combined force to attack and take China, what happens next? How does the invasion play out, how do other powers react, etc.
Last edited:
WI: Britain and France launch cooperative invasion of China
- Thread starter Pantsbucket
- Start date
Anaxagoras
Banned
They had more important things to worry about closer to home, most of all each other.
This didn't happen, it's a thread asking what would happen as a result of it happening. WI = What If. Also year has been changed to 1750.
But what is the historical basis for this idea? Things don't just suddenly happen out of the blue.
Anaxagoras
Banned
That's not really the way it works around here. If you want to present a scenario (i.e. Britain and France jointly invading China in 1750), you have to explain how it would be plausible for it to happen. Otherwise, we have no context in which to further the discussion. On its own, the idea of Britain and France jointly invading China in the middle of the 18th Century, when the two nations were deadly enemies, makes no sense.
If it were to somehow happen, it would certainly tax the imagination of all parties concerned. A close race between the inefficiency of Qing China and the inadequacy of Western technology to the task.
My money's on China, ultimately.
My money's on China, ultimately.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Britain and France lose thousands of soldiers and millions of francs/pounds fighting a force that outnumbers them 10 to 1, and armed with technology that's not too far behind the Europeans. Eventually, they both either withdraw or collapse when the people are no longer able to pay the exorbitant taxes necessary to fund the most idiotic military operation in human history.
Seriously, this would probably be almost impossible to pull off in 1850, let alone in 1750.
Seriously, this would probably be almost impossible to pull off in 1850, let alone in 1750.
Britain did actually do it-sort of. Not conquest, but mostly extracting concessions.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
That's because they were smart about it. They sailed up the river, blew up whatever their boats could reach, nabbed an island, and withdrew. Even Victorian Britain, the most imperialist nation that ever imperialisted, knew better than to launch a full-scale invasion and attempted annexation* of China.
*The OP did say "attack and take" China.
Well conquering China would be pretty impossible. The sheer vastness of the country ensures that. However, didn't Britain and France launch joint (or concurrent) invasions of China during the second Opium war?
Anaxagoras
Banned
Yes, they did. But the mid-19th Century is a very different time than the mid -18th Century, especially in terms of the relationship between France and the United Kingdom.
Faeelin
Banned
Mmm... I wouldn't rule the Qing out at this point. The Qing Empire is why China looks like China today, and not a state that goes no farther north than Beijing and west than Sichuan.
Indeed. To clarify: in 1850 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Second French Empire were allies; in 1750 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of France were fierce rivals across the world, and were just about to fight one of the largest wars in history (perhaps the first true world war, or at least one of the first) against each other.
Oh, I'm certainly not expecting an Anglo-French victory. But given the complete outlandishness of the event, I could see the Chinese suffering some humiliating reverses intially. Their military was designed to operate on the frontiers. How would local officials even react to European warships off their coast?
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
While I'd share many of the quibbles with the OP, it's not entirely impossible.
I do quibble with the objective of "take China". That sets the bar too high. India hasn't even been "taken" yet. A more plausible objective for an anti-Chinese coalition would be trade concessions and cession of Macau like enclaves.
Also, I would quibble with the timing. 1750 was smack in between the War of Austrian succession and the 7 Years War, a truce at the height of mid-century conflict.
But, there were other time periods where Anglo-French collaboration would be more plausible.
Notably in the 20 year peaceful period between the war of Spanish Succession and Austrian Succession, which resulted in the Anglo-French alliance of 1716-1731
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_Alliance
Based on general comparisons and principles, this seems like even worse odds than 1750.
It did coincide with the transition from Emperor Kangxi to Emperor Yongzheng in China in 1722, which was not 100% smooth.
...and both Britain were still getting established in India at this point.
A second period of potential, but less likely, Anglo-French collaboration could be the 1770s -
Perhaps if the British from 1769 or so attempted a deliberate policy of accomodation with France and peace in Europe while trying to manage their colonial simmering unrest, one part of it might have been to divert France with potentially profitable ventures to open up trade in the Far East, especially China. By this point, Britain has established its clear lead in India.
This is in Qianlong's reign.
So let's look at the 1720 version of this, and then the 1770
1720: How do the powers perform against each other militarily, and how do the Anglo-French fund what they are doing? Good question-that I leave to others. How do other powers powers react?
The most important one is Russia. It may choose to join the dogpile or curry favor w/ China by posing as a friend. The Netherlands and Spain are other relevant players. The Dutch would just profiteer trading with both sides, although they could opt to be a bit player in the Anglo-French coalition. Spain probably is not up for anything in particular. Also in this era, despite Bourbon family ties, France and Spain were not always on the same side of European disputes.
One potential disadvantage for te Chinese at this time compared to later periods is they are dealing with the Dzhungar enemy still, and should Russia become hostile, it could form a coalition with them.
For the 1770: I would tend to think that Anglo-French have become relatively more advanced militarily, but I could not speak well to the particulars. Likewise, the Russians are stronger and remain the key third power. the Dutch are even more focused on trade, staying neutral politically, and laying low. The Spanish are working more closely with the French under the family compact, but have probably fallen further behind their northern neighbors.
Fiscally speaking, the British and French both better have a plan that can work without exorbitant cost and that yields some returns in trade or indemnities extorted pretty soon. They both had fiscal problems. Everything depends on shock, awe and theatrics of intimidation working and yielding a pay-out for the attackers. Having the Russians jump in would be a great aid too. The biggest stumbling block in getting the 1770 rolling would be getting the French to see this cooperation with Britain as being potentially profitable enough to set old grievances aside.
Indeed, aside for the plausibility of allying with UK in the 1770s, the biggest problem for France may be one of finances. Remember that OTL, France effectively bankrupted itself to give Independence to the USA (Of course, that included providing, pay, arms, uniforms and food for the continental army and effectively paying all US government expenses, which will not happen ITTL, but still, it shows that the financial capability of the French government in that time period was rather limited)
Grey Wolf
Donor
Aren't they going to need Spanish support? I can't see where else they can base out of. You can't invade China with a few thousand men, you need a few tens of thousands. You need to base somewhere nearby to recover from the journey, resupply and have a logistics launch point.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
I can't imagine how Britain + France are going to take China. Defeat it, maybe, but I wouldn't argue that the duo are so strong at this point that they can pull an expedition like this off without the (overt or covert) support of the Dutch, Portuguese or Spanish.
Russian intervention isn't really likely, since China was a big trading market for the Siberian Russians, which overrode any potential prestige gains from taking the Amur Basin.
It would seem that the best strategy for Britain and France to go about their business would be to repeat what they did in the Opium War: just go from coast to coast and blast Chinese defences, combined with a brief occupation of some of the outlying islands (Zhoushan or Taiwan) as basing points, and hopefully cow the Qing into surrender.
The problem is that the Qing of 1750 is not the Qing of 1839: Qianlong was a much more energetic Emperor than Daoguang, and in any case had just engaged in a number of successful foreign enterprises around the Chinese periphery. Similarly, the Manchu Banners were much less at a disadvantage compared with contemporary Western troops.
Finally, there was much less British and French contact with the Chinese people, which meant that recruiting locals for spies, interpreters and scouts is going to be that much more difficult. The British + French will probably therefore commit a number of amateur errors during the course of the campaign, not to mention their mutual suspicion of each other will hamper what kind of strategy they can put out.
They might well be able to occupy and island or two, but will probably be unable to physically threaten the large cities of the coast. Even in 1830 the British had to fight hard to take Mainland cities like Zhenhai and Zhenjiang with large Manchu populations (and commented that the Manchus would have been good matches for their Indian sepoys) - so such battles in 1750 would have gone even worse for them. And without cities on the Mainland, there's nothing the duo can really do to force the Qing to heel. On the contrary, the total closure of the China trade to Britain and France would probably wreak havoc on their economies.
To be frank, the best way the British and French can gain a small victory out of this is if they 'bribed' a couple of Qianlong's courtiers, who could then arrange some face-saving gestures between the nations and settle this whole thing after a prolonged stalemate.
Russian intervention isn't really likely, since China was a big trading market for the Siberian Russians, which overrode any potential prestige gains from taking the Amur Basin.
It would seem that the best strategy for Britain and France to go about their business would be to repeat what they did in the Opium War: just go from coast to coast and blast Chinese defences, combined with a brief occupation of some of the outlying islands (Zhoushan or Taiwan) as basing points, and hopefully cow the Qing into surrender.
The problem is that the Qing of 1750 is not the Qing of 1839: Qianlong was a much more energetic Emperor than Daoguang, and in any case had just engaged in a number of successful foreign enterprises around the Chinese periphery. Similarly, the Manchu Banners were much less at a disadvantage compared with contemporary Western troops.
Finally, there was much less British and French contact with the Chinese people, which meant that recruiting locals for spies, interpreters and scouts is going to be that much more difficult. The British + French will probably therefore commit a number of amateur errors during the course of the campaign, not to mention their mutual suspicion of each other will hamper what kind of strategy they can put out.
They might well be able to occupy and island or two, but will probably be unable to physically threaten the large cities of the coast. Even in 1830 the British had to fight hard to take Mainland cities like Zhenhai and Zhenjiang with large Manchu populations (and commented that the Manchus would have been good matches for their Indian sepoys) - so such battles in 1750 would have gone even worse for them. And without cities on the Mainland, there's nothing the duo can really do to force the Qing to heel. On the contrary, the total closure of the China trade to Britain and France would probably wreak havoc on their economies.
To be frank, the best way the British and French can gain a small victory out of this is if they 'bribed' a couple of Qianlong's courtiers, who could then arrange some face-saving gestures between the nations and settle this whole thing after a prolonged stalemate.