WI France makes a moves in Europe, not America, during the American rebellion - 'quand le lion sera absent le coq jouera'

[raharris1973]

WI France made a power-political move in Europe, not America, during the American rebellion?

What I have in mind is a French move to conquer and annex the Austrian Netherlands, the type of French expansion which Britain always objected to, while Britain is busy employing its limited military resources quelling the colonial rebellion of the mid-1770s.

To set up a pre-condition for this, I would think that after the 7 Years War, France effectively gives up its domestically unpopular Austrian alliance as moribund, rather than doubling down on it. Likely this is because it was never popular domestically, and it failed to secure a win for either partner in Europe or the colonial sphere. A side effect of this is some other Catholic bride, probably from a smaller German or Italian royal house, is chosen for Louis XVI, instead of the Austrienne Marie-Antoinette.

So, France spends the late 1760s and early 1770s building up its Navy and professionalizing its Army, anticipating the next round of war in Europe, whatever that may be. In 1766, France inherits Lorraine. In 1768, France scores a coup by successfully absorbing Corsica. In the early 1770s, France resists the temptation to unite with Spain to clash against Britain over the Malvinas Islands.

France watches the deterioration of relations between Britain and its American colonists between 1772 and 1776 with great interest, and allows covert sales of gunpowder to colonial rebels.

Some advocate for general colonial war with Britain once the American rebels declare independence or appear to be a going concern, or at least argue that France should follow that course if the rebels demonstrate enough staying power.

However, another faction in the French court arises arguing that if Englishmen from both sides of the Atlantic are killing each other, they should not be interrupted, and the problem of any French intervention on a side would be that one set of Englishmen would win, whereas the ideal outcome would be Englishmen on *both* sides of the Atlantic losing while France wins something for itself elsewhere.

The French government in 1777 begins preparing a build-up for the invasion of the Austrian Netherlands, and the American rebel victory at Saratoga in October 1777 convinces the French that the rebels will keep Britain busy for awhile, leading France to approve the launch of its own invasion of Austrian Netherlands in early 1778, flanked by its own naval forces.

In 1778, the French will encounter direct Austrian resistance in the Austrian Netherlands, but the Prussians are not on good terms with the Austrians, and the Dutch are likely feeling too weak to contend with France. France should be well-positioned to overmatch the Austrian garrisons, which the Habsburgs will find difficult to support or reinforce through the territories of other Princes.

The country with the greatest traditional interest, weight, and capability to oppose France in this area, beside Austria itself, is Britain, which is dealing with the American rebellion.

Faced in early 1778 with a protracted American rebellion on the one hand, but with a French invasion of the Austrian Netherlands on the other that threatens to put Antwerp, and potentially later the Scheldt in French hands, what will the British government prioritize and how will it split its limited number of British Isles and hired German regiments?

Will it stay focused on suppressing the American rebellion, even at the risk of France gaining and consolidating its hold over the southern Netherlands? Or will it come to an early settlement with the Americans (or simply vastly reduce operations in America without a settlement) and declare war on France in order to intervene to protect the independence of southern Netherlands from France?

 

[PsihoKekec]

France had been seen as a clear and present danger for a long time, so war against them will take precedence over war against the rebels, so either there is a negotiated settlement or a war with reduced capabilities, with Americans probably trying to take Canada. However British government will be able to get much more funding for war with France, than it could get for war against the rebels, the recruitment also won't be as much of a problem. So once the war with France ends or winds down, the British will have a window of opportunity to hit the Americans much harder than OTL, if the settlement hasn't been achieved that is.

 

[Buba]

1 - You have heard about the 1778 War of Bavarian Succession, have you?
2 - Funding the Rebels was a safe way of getting at Britain, as this does not provoke a - much costlier - war in Europe.
3 - the French army had been professional from since like forever up to 1790.

 

[stevep]

raharris1973

An interesting suggestion although it would need a serious change in French aims as they really wanted revenge for their earlier defeats and some areas, especially in the Caribbean were very, very wealthy.

As Bubba says the 1778 War of Bavarian Successions has to be considered. Whether this has already gone through or not, and since the Bavarian dynasty seems to have favoured the proposed change i.e swapping the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria it could well be that Bavaria, traditionally a French ally in wars with Austria could be on the other side. Furthermore most of the other smaller German states would be concerned about such a move, with Prussia, if Paris had sought to renew links with them being the only significant exception. The Dutch would also be strongly opposed to such a move. So even if Britain didn't join in and I agree with PsihoKekec that they would France would be facing a powerful alliance against themselves and possibly have sacrificed Spanish support, such as it would have been.

The other big issue would have been Russia and not sure what its alignment would have been or it might just have sat back and say concentrated on either the faltering Polish state or some element of the Ottoman empire.

Also if France is planning to avoid a war with Britain would it have put that much effort into the navy as maintaining a large navy in peacetime is very expensive, let alone at war. IIRC France deliberately decided on only colonial clashes with Britain OTL to save money on the army so as to build up their fleet. Here either they spend less on the fleet to free up resources for the army, which poses problems if Britain does join the coalition against them or they have to spend a lot more on both army and navy.

If they make only minimal efforts to support the American rebels then Britain, at least unless and until open war with France, doesn't have to commit to defending its possessions in the Caribbean, India etc and there's not likely to be the siege of Gibraltar either. If France only sells items to the rebels they will get a lot less than OTL and presumably no gold either which was very important in maintaining the rebel forces and economy. Also Spain possibly angered at lack of French support might sit out any conflict even if Britain and France end up at war. Which would again make Britain's position in both conflicts significantly easier.

I suspect that the war would probably end with possibly some small gains for French on the continent but very little of the Austrian Netherlands as that area is too sensitive for the Netherlands and Britain and also large numbers of German states. Does Prussia get involved on the French side and if so how does it go. Frederick the Great performed amazingly in the 7YW to keep his state together but it was greatly strained and he was supposed to have been a lot more cautious in the Bavarian Succession 'conflict' so he's unlikely to be as aggressive plus with Britain and the Netherlands on the opposing side he would have to rely on subsidies from France, which might well be facing a lot of strain. As such you might see Prussia either sitting things out or further strain on its economy or even possibly some losses. If Silesia was regained by Austria that could see Prussia's period as a serious challenge to Austrian primary in Germany ending. Its possible it could go the other way but I suspect unlikely.

Under those circumstances your likely to see further French colonial losses, albeit possibly not large ones. Although if Spain also joins in it could see things being a lot more even.

One butterfly if there's another serious clash between Austria and Prussia you might be less likely to see Austria supporting a Polish partition.

Just about anything could happen in N America.

Anyway initial rambles on what might happen.

Steve

 

[raharris1973]

France had been seen as a clear and present danger for a long time, so war against them will take precedence over war against the rebels, so either there is a negotiated settlement or a war with reduced capabilities, with Americans probably trying to take Canada.

Interesting - So with regard to America, Britain is likely to say 'hold my beer yankee traitors, I've got some frogs to stew', figuring there is time to smash them later or to negotiate a deal or for the sulky colonists to come to their senses and ask for forgiveness on their own (this last not likely!).

Britain then proceeds to sound the alarm against France, concentrate the fleet in the channel, mobilize its own limited forces and those of any German mercenaries it can hire to intervene directly in the Austrian Netherlands, while seeking to win over any continental allies it can get.

With lesser detachments of the fleet, Royal Marines, and troops, Britain goes after the smallest and easiest to take French overseas islands and trading posts (St. Pierre, Miquelon, Martinique, Pondicherry) as bargaining counters and keeps up its blockade of sorts against the Americans until that issue is resolved without trying to hold anything on North America outside of the Canadas, New York City/Manhattan and Long Island.

The task of British diplomacy will be to try to keep Spain neutral or even on Britain's side, which could well be easier, because France's strategy focused on Austrian Netherlands isn't promising a focus on Spanish gains in Gibraltar and the the Caribbean. Spain still hates the British too, and will try to bluff to get something (Gibraltar, Florida) for nothing.

However British government will be able to get much more funding for war with France, than it could get for war against the rebels, the recruitment also won't be as much of a problem.

This should be nothing but good for the British Ministers and King

So once the war with France ends or winds down, the British will have a window of opportunity to hit the Americans much harder than OTL, if the settlement hasn't been achieved that is.

Possibly so, a very *brief* window of opportunity, depending on the contracts the troops and ship captains are signed up for, the pounds in the Ministries coffers, Parliaments' patience, and how wisely the Continentals have been using their time of being under less pressure, in terms of military or diplomatic preparation.

And this presumes Britain wins on the continent, with the right set of continental allies, gets France to back down and demobilize behind its own borders, and then is itself not so over-exhausting or over-attriting that it is able to re-employ it's winning force in the North American theater.

1 - You have heard about the 1778 War of Bavarian Succession, have you?

Yes. Now I don't have a month-by-month chronology, but it would be affected, preempted, or interrupted by the idea I'm proposing, I'm just not sure of the details.

2 - Funding the Rebels was a safe way of getting at Britain, as this does not provoke a - much costlier - war in Europe.

Sure, but it became unsafe once there was recognition and alliance with the rebels. And war in Europe certainly has its high risks, but also its higher potential rewards.

3 - the French army had been professional from since like forever up to 1790.

Whether this has already gone through or not, and since the Bavarian dynasty seems to have favoured the proposed change i.e swapping the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria it could well be that Bavaria, traditionally a French ally in wars with Austria could be on the other side.

Both the Austrians and Bavarians have an interesting time deciding how hard to invest in a defensive effort against aggression. On the one hand the Austrians are honor bound to fight some to hold it since they own it at the start of the fight. But how hard since they were looking to trade it away.

The Bavarians have a dream of getting it, but is it even worth fighting for if they know the French are trying to conquer the land? Of course Bavaria would also lose all reason to fight *on France's behalf*

The Dutch would also be strongly opposed to such a move.

They would dread it, but would they consider themselves to have to the financial and armed and naval might to oppose the French directly, even with a few allies? I think the Dutch were past their prime and knew it. They probably wouldn't see the Austrians alone as a strong enough coalition. Maybe if Britain and Prussia piled in, sure.

The other big issue would have been Russia and not sure what its alignment would have been or it might just have sat back and say concentrated on either the faltering Polish state or some element of the Ottoman empire

I think the latter are the Russians most immediate likely, and direct interests, but the Russians do have the spare capacity to participate in an anti-French coalition if others, like the British, pay for it.

Which would again make Britain's position in both conflicts significantly easier.

The increased likelihood of Spain sitting things out could be a pro-British factor. But, Britain's not going to have an easy time getting a complete suppression of the Americans without a political compromise, or get the French to stand down within their own borders and out of the Austrian Netherlands, in any rapid timeframe. Both would take time, patience, resources, and allies with the same in the case of Europe.

 

[stevep]

Interesting - So with regard to America, Britain is likely to say 'hold my beer yankee traitors, I've got some frogs to stew', figuring there is time to smash them later or to negotiate a deal or for the sulky colonists to come to their senses and ask for forgiveness on their own (this last not likely!).

Britain then proceeds to sound the alarm against France, concentrate the fleet in the channel, mobilize its own limited forces and those of any German mercenaries it can hire to intervene directly in the Austrian Netherlands, while seeking to win over any continental allies it can get.

With lesser detachments of the fleet, Royal Marines, and troops, Britain goes after the smallest and easiest to take French overseas islands and trading posts (St. Pierre, Miquelon, Martinique, Pondicherry) as bargaining counters and keeps up its blockade of sorts against the Americans until that issue is resolved without trying to hold anything on North America outside of the Canadas, New York City/Manhattan and Long Island.

Less 'hold my beer' than concentrate far more forces against the European threat than the rebels, which is pretty much what happened OTL, only somewhat more so in this scenario. OTL Britain was fighting the French in the Med, Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian waters and large forces were needed to relieve Gibraltar while Minorca was lost. Also Spanish and Dutch involvement on the hostile side complicated matters, with direct aid for the rebels by the Spanish campaign which occupied western Florida and tied up a fair amount of British forces. Similarly the French fleet and army that were so important at Yorktown had been based in the Caribbean and moved north to avoid the hurricane season there. [The British commander thought that most had returned to France and himself send a section of his forces back to Britain with others reinforcing the 'American station'.

The task of British diplomacy will be to try to keep Spain neutral or even on Britain's side, which could well be easier, because France's strategy focused on Austrian Netherlands isn't promising a focus on Spanish gains in Gibraltar and the the Caribbean. Spain still hates the British too, and will try to bluff to get something (Gibraltar, Florida) for nothing.

I suspect that Spain would still join France because they have too many common interests, especially against Britain and France isn't going to use its fleet only in the Channel.

This should be nothing but good for the British Ministers and King

True.

Possibly so, a very *brief* window of opportunity, depending on the contracts the troops and ship captains are signed up for, the pounds in the Ministries coffers, Parliaments' patience, and how wisely the Continentals have been using their time of being under less pressure, in terms of military or diplomatic preparation.

And this presumes Britain wins on the continent, with the right set of continental allies, gets France to back down and demobilize behind its own borders, and then is itself not so over-exhausting or over-attriting that it is able to re-employ it's winning force in the North American theater.

Agreed on both points. It would depend on how willing Britain was to continue the war against the rebels, especially in turn of political will, what has happened in the theatre in the period while the larger war in Europe was occurring and of course that Britain 'wins' enough to end French [and Spanish] aid to the rebels. The latter would be a big blow if it meant no further artillery, powder, muskets, uniforms and especially gold to the rebels.

Yes. Now I don't have a month-by-month chronology, but it would be affected, preempted, or interrupted by the idea I'm proposing, I'm just not sure of the details.

It would depend on the timing and also Austrian reaction to the French attack. If the latter was on the Austrian Netherlands then its going to be hostile of course although at this point France and Austria are allies - A certain Austrian princess [Marie Antoinette ] had been married to the French king since 1770 to highlight the alliance.

I think its far more likely that France, if it decided to make a move on the continent would be to occupy Hanover, possibly as a bargaining chip for use against Britain. This avoids alienating both Austria and - if the swap with Bavaria is being considered at the time of the dow also it. [War_of_the_Bavarian_Succession-Deal-maker on the conflict there is little mention of the Austrian Netherlands, only parts of it and Bavaria being exchanged between the two groups].

Sure, but it became unsafe once there was recognition and alliance with the rebels. And war in Europe certainly has its high risks, but also its higher potential rewards.

However since France would need to field a large army to achieve its aims and Britain would seek to hire mercanaries its likely to be more expensive for France than Britain. Especially since any move on Hanover is going to upset a lot of German states.

Both the Austrians and Bavarians have an interesting time deciding how hard to invest in a defensive effort against aggression. On the one hand the Austrians are honor bound to fight some to hold it since they own it at the start of the fight. But how hard since they were looking to trade it away.

The Bavarians have a dream of getting it, but is it even worth fighting for if they know the French are trying to conquer the land? Of course Bavaria would also lose all reason to fight *on France's behalf*

As I mentioned above its unclear how much of the two regions, Bavaria and the Austrian Netherlands were up for exchange and further down on the section labelled Tensions_rise it seems that Joseph was bargaining in bad faith and never intended to exchange more than a few bits of the Austrian Netherlands. France, in which some significant figures were opposed to Joseph's plans made clear it wouldn't support Austria and faced with opposition by Prussia and Saxony and warning noises from Catherine the Great Joseph eventually backed down.

Possibly one butterfly here would be for France to back Austria but that probably means France and Austria are at war with at least Prussia, Saxony and probably also Britain, Bavaria and Russia so that would seem to be a bad decision for Paris.

They would dread it, but would they consider themselves to have to the financial and armed and naval might to oppose the French directly, even with a few allies? I think the Dutch were past their prime and knew it. They probably wouldn't see the Austrians alone as a strong enough coalition. Maybe if Britain and Prussia piled in, sure.

The Dutch were past their prime and I think they knew it. However the idea of the Austrian Netherlands in French hands would be a serious concern for them so at least their likely to oppose it diplomatically. If Austria isn't supporting a French invasion - which would presumably mean French is offering Vienna something big, then we have Austria and probably also many other smaller German states opposing such a move so the Dutch are likely to as well.

After, IIRC the War of the Spanish Succession, when the southern Netherlands were transferred from Spain to Austria the Dutch achieved the right to occupy a number of fortifications in the province. Not sure if they were still doing this in the 1770's but it was an expensive process for them.

Even if the Dutch don't militarily oppose a French invasion of the province then its likely to make them feel more exposed so they could be more willing to make a deal with Britain, avoiding war with them by not supporting the rebels.

I think the latter are the Russians most immediate likely, and direct interests, but the Russians do have the spare capacity to participate in an anti-French coalition if others, like the British, pay for it.

As the link I quoted mentioned the final nail in the coffin of the idea was Russia's clear opposition to Austria increasing its power in Germany by getting large sections of Bavaria. Whether they would still have this opposition if some sort of deal with France - say France gets the southern Netherlands in return for supporting Austria getting all of Bavaria - means France is supporting Austria I don't know but I suspect she [Catherine] would still oppose it. The displacement of a ruler, especially an ancient and large dynasty one such as for Bavaria is likely to be a light the blue touch paper issue for every other German ruler as they would fear this happening to them. Hence I could see a general war with France and Austria having a very rough time here.

The increased likelihood of Spain sitting things out could be a pro-British factor. But, Britain's not going to have an easy time getting a complete suppression of the Americans without a political compromise, or get the French to stand down within their own borders and out of the Austrian Netherlands, in any rapid timeframe. Both would take time, patience, resources, and allies with the same in the case of Europe.

True.

- To summarize, unless its a deal with Vienna I can't see France attacking the Austrian Netherlands as it alienates their primarily continental ally. It would kick up a hell of a fuss across the rest of Germany and the Netherlands as well Britain and probably Russia if it was part of some transfer of Bavaria to Austrian control.

More likely would be an attack into western Germany towards Hanover. However its likely to cause upset among much of the neighbouring German states as well as Prussia and probably Saxony and not sure what Vienna's position would be.

Either was France could make a move to add a large continental conflict to the current colonial one but I think it would be markedly more costly for France than for Britain and it would put serious strain on, if not shatter much of the anti-British alliance that was developing, most noticeably the First_League_of_Armed_Neutrality.

Steve

 

[raharris1973]

although at this point France and Austria are allies - A certain Austrian princess [Marie Antoinette ] had been married to the French king since 1770 to highlight the alliance.

If you re-look at the OP, I took that royal match out of the timeline as part of a Franco-Austrian 'distancing' in advance of the ATL.

Possibly one butterfly here would be for France to back Austria but that probably means France and Austria are at war with at least Prussia, Saxony and probably also Britain, Bavaria and Russia so that would seem to be a bad decision for Paris.

Yes, in the circumstances of 1778, France might have chosen to support any Austro-Bavarian deal, but it would have gained France absolutely nothing on the continent for itself. It would have supported the aggrandizement of two allies (Bavaria, Austria) in exchange for closer ties, while attracting an equal number of stronger enemies.

Your speculation on invading Hanover has a certain logic if we are (a) constrained by the logic of the Franco-Austrian alliance, rather than jettisoning that tie (in OTL France didn't throw it entirely overboard, but it was a weak tie, with France voicing objection to Austro-Bavarian territorial trades, and Austria not joining the Bourbon war on Britain or recognizing the American rebels) and (b) France is actively pursuing open antagonism towards the Hanoverian monarchs ruling Hanover and Britain, and hitting Hanover because it looks 'easy'.

But actually, for a deliberate anti-British war, rather than a separate enterprise you hope Britain stays out of, OTL's strategy, a sea-war and colonial war only, with Hanover neutral, made more sense, because it kept down the number of French enemies.

The idea in the OP is France trying to gain something *for* itself, not *against* Britain, and hoping it can get away with a making a bank heist of the Austrian Netherlands a fait accompli at that moment just like Prussia did with Austrian Silesia, and get away with it because the powers who would stop the French robbery of Belgium (Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Netherlands) would be too busy with other priorities and struggles (American rebellion, Poland and Polish partition, the Ottoman frontiers, and their own internal weakness) to fight at all or fight with the tenacity to beat the French.

What I'm getting universally from the responses though is not only would this be a gamble, but a long shot one. Other European powers (and Britain) really would try to walk and chew gum at the same time, and have chance of outlasting and outfighting the French.

 

[stevep]

If you re-look at the OP, I took that royal match out of the timeline as part of a Franco-Austrian 'distancing' in advance of the ATL.



Yes, in the circumstances of 1778, France might have chosen to support any Austro-Bavarian deal, but it would have gained France absolutely nothing on the continent for itself. It would have supported the aggrandizement of two allies (Bavaria, Austria) in exchange for closer ties, while attracting an equal number of stronger enemies.

Your speculation on invading Hanover has a certain logic if we are (a) constrained by the logic of the Franco-Austrian alliance, rather than jettisoning that tie (in OTL France didn't throw it entirely overboard, but it was a weak tie, with France voicing objection to Austro-Bavarian territorial trades, and Austria not joining the Bourbon war on Britain or recognizing the American rebels) and (b) France is actively pursuing open antagonism towards the Hanoverian monarchs ruling Hanover and Britain, and hitting Hanover because it looks 'easy'.

But actually, for a deliberate anti-British war, rather than a separate enterprise you hope Britain stays out of, OTL's strategy, a sea-war and colonial war only, with Hanover neutral, made more sense, because it kept down the number of French enemies.

The idea in the OP is France trying to gain something *for* itself, not *against* Britain, and hoping it can get away with a making a bank heist of the Austrian Netherlands a fait accompli at that moment just like Prussia did with Austrian Silesia, and get away with it because the powers who would stop the French robbery of Belgium (Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Netherlands) would be too busy with other priorities and struggles (American rebellion, Poland and Polish partition, the Ottoman frontiers, and their own internal weakness) to fight at all or fight with the tenacity to beat the French.

What I'm getting universally from the responses though is not only would this be a gamble, but a long shot one. Other European powers (and Britain) really would try to walk and chew gum at the same time, and have chance of outlasting and outfighting the French.

Sorry for missing that 1st point.

Agree that the sort of thing being proposed is a long shot for France. If they alienate Austria, having dropped Prussia then unless they can link back up with Prussia their pretty much isolated on the continent.

IIRC one of the chief ministers of France after 1763, something like Choief [sp] but short of time today - specifically planned for diplomatically isolating Britain for a purely colonial war where without a big continental conflict they thought France could do better. The lack of need for a large military commitment meant that more money was available for the French fleet which preformed very well for most of the war, including the crucial victory in the Chesapeake Bay and serious problems caused in the Indian Ocean.

Of course Britain helped this cause immensely by isolating itself on the continent and then failing to realise the extent of the problems with the colonies.

 

[raharris1973]

Choief [sp]

'Choiseul' c'est l'homme tu cherches mon ami

 

[stevep]

'Choiseul' c'est l'homme tu cherches mon ami

Yes that's the guy. Was rather tight on time yesterday due to events so didn't have the time to dig his name up.