TEH AMERICAN REVOLOOTION

[jimmy olsen]

Even if it hadn't the Americans would have started a war with Spain over New Orleans in the 1790s or 1800s anyways and that would have dragged France into it.

Naked British aggression?  Those limey bastards!

More like American aggression. Spain won't sell so I foresee fillibustering by Southern militias or outright attack by the American Dominion/Kingdom.

[Oexmelin]

I think the conquest of Louisiana would have pleased Americans greatly.

We should not be too sure about that. The Purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated - and even that is notwithstanding the question of *how* the conquest would have been managed, which would have been susceptible to many political differences.

[Admiral Yi]

We should not be too sure about that. The Purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated - and even that is notwithstanding the question of *how* the conquest would have been managed, which would have been susceptible to many political differences.

Or the question of how the conquest would have been codified by treaty.

[Oexmelin]

Even if it hadn't the Americans would have started a war with Spain over New Orleans in the 1790s or 1800s anyways and that would have dragged France into it.

This is the worst of what-ifs. The intricacies of diplomacy of the late 18th c., absent an American Revolution, make it impossible to show this kind of certainty. What other crisis might have erupted ? How would the geopolitics of Europe respond to British triumphalism ? How exactly would the Spanish «drag» the French into such a conflict, when France was beset by famine and bad winters ?

[PDH]

What if Tim suddenly lost the ability to post?

[Valmy]

What if Tim suddenly lost the ability to post?

How could I understand the news without his insightful commentary?

[Ed Anger]

What if Tim suddenly lost the ability to post?

How could I understand the news without his insightful commentary?

SHAMEFUL. 

[jimmy olsen]

I think the conquest of Louisiana would have pleased Americans greatly.

We should not be too sure about that. The Purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated - and even that is notwithstanding the question of *how* the conquest would have been managed, which would have been susceptible to many political differences.

The purchase of Louisiana was heavily debated because of domestic political differences between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The two parties took hypocritical stances on the constitution and there was fear of an erosion of political power for the Northeast among the Federalists. While the latter might still exist among a faction in a British North America, ideologically I think that the population of an empire would be more predisposed to the idea of expansion than a Republic. Moreover as I mentioned in an earlier post, war might not begin at the behest of the American government but be provoked by filibustering Southern militias. The people of the frontier were not constrained by the diplomatic niceties of the government.

As for war with Spain dragging in France, my belief in Louis XVI's ability to miscalculate knows no limits.

And of course this presupposes that some extraordinary, unforeseen foreign policy crisis doesn't intervene but it's hard to see how one could occur with out leading to war with France and be considered major. Perhaps war with Russia, but over what?

[Oexmelin]

I think that the population of an empire would be more predisposed to the idea of expansion than a Republic.

Why ? Out of being part of an Empire ? You have to delve into ideas more than that. You might have oppositions to war as being costly, frontiers as being dangerous, colonies as being competitors. One could well envision the British Court as the agreed-upon arbiter in a contest of competiing colonies.

Moreover as I mentioned in an earlier post, war might not begin at the behest of the American government but be provoked by filibustering Southern militias. The people of the frontier were not constrained by the diplomatic niceties of the government.

No, they were not. The main problem though would not be the Southern militias nor the Spanish, but the Natives - likewise unconstrained by foreign conceptions of diplomacy. This is, again, the much more probable conflict emerging on the border. Your Southern militias should have to operate from Mobile, the only point of Southern contact along the Mississippi, and that place forces you to be in relations with the Choctaws, Chicasaws, Cherookees, southern Shawnees, etc. Such relations were not optimal with the American Republic.

Then, there is still the problem of which Spanish Empire you are considering. If your are projecting backwards the situation that existed on the Tejas border, that is slightly different as the Empire is not yet enmeshed in wars of independance, nor, strictly speaking, defending a backcountry. New Orleans was, in 1768, the site of one of the main episodes of Spanish projection of force from the Americas, in the Americas.

So, yes: possibilities of casus belli abound. The end results however, are far from being preordained, from Southern militias losing and being supported or denounced by British to a Britain unwilling to enter a war on the colonists' terms.

As for war with Spain dragging in France, my belief in Louis XVI's ability to miscalculate knows no limits.

Louis XVI is not alone in his court: Louis XV's diplomacy shows that, at this time, the King of France had to navigate around factions in France's nobility. Having a Bourbon on the throne in the 1720s and in the 1820s did not prevent France from waging war against Spain both times.

[jimmy olsen]

We must simulate the matter with EU3 

[jimmy olsen]

Simulation seems to suggest an accelerated conquest of the subcontinent.