raharris1973
Well-known member
Here is the basic background reading:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Crisis
Here is my question, and I have a poll attached: If the Nootka Crisis sparks an Anglo-Spanish war circa 1790-91, can UK and Spain still be co-belligerents against France by 1793?
How I imagine an Anglo-Spanish War occurring would have to be if the Pitt Ministry is even more aggressive on the overall issue and basically corners Spain into a fight, by escalating demands [perhaps to demand an explicit renunciation of Spanish claims north of their northernmost California mission in favor of British claims?] to where no self-respecting Spanish government can accept. Pitt would have to do this because for some reason he sees some jingoistic domestic political benefitting in fighting Spain or humiliating it, in addition to pushing out imperial boundaries a bit. Alternatively, the British government of the day simply does jingoistic marketing to public and parliament for a declaration of war on Spain to contest control of the disputed area and protest Spain's real-life claims to exclusive dominion over the Pacific shores and detention and British ship's crews and captains. Possibly higher-handed actions by Spanish "men-on-the spot" or bloodshed or British deaths or maimings, lost lives, legs, ears, that did not happen in OTL, could add fuel to such a fire.
I have a harder time seeing Spain unilaterally escalating things to war with Britain, even though they were incensed at British activity in the Pacific, simply because they knew they were a bit weaker and poorer. They might have considered holding out more, or escalating, with French support, but they did not have that in real history [because of France's internal focus on early revolutionary/constitutional changes), and I am not considering that alternative.
I think with its greater naval power and wealth and productive power, Britain would be much favored to win a fight on anywhere from a modest to a large scale. Modest scale would be Britain winning local naval marine battles off the Pacific northwest American coast and forcing Spain to concede British ownership of that coastline and its waters. Larger scale victories could involve Britain attacking, occupying, and forcing Spain to concede ownership of additional Spanish colonial territory or territories somewhere in the western hemisphere, or potentially the Far East.
After such a defeat/humiliation at British hands, I would imagine Spain would have a very bitter taste in its mouth about Britain, and be averse to voluntarily aligning with Britain on any international questions.
So, when the French Revolution radicalizes, and France gets involved with wars with European neighbors, Spain, while regarding French revolutionaries as heretical scum, will be more buitterly nursing its wounds than looking to ally with other powers, especially predatory Britain, or their little Dutch ally, against France. This sentiment would likely continue, even as the French revolutionaries go even more bonkers, kill their King, and declare themselves a Republic.
So would Spain manage to keep itself out of the French Revolutionary Wars, from 1793-1795, and later in the 1790s? Or would the French revolutionaries fail to take advantage of Spain's bitter anti-British isolationism and the opportunity to leave the Pyrenees a quiet front? Would France for war upon Spain in the 1790s despite Spanish lack of interest in one? In 1793 or some later year? Or would the Spanish, shocked by French godlessness and aggressiveness on the continent, overcome their anti-British sulk, to join the 1st Coalition against France, either in 1793. or subsequent years until France imposed its will on its continental powers in that round (1797)? Or might Spain stay neutral until France appears pretty succesful on the continent, and then join France's side, hoping to join its bandwagon against Britain, to get revenge on the latter?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Crisis
Here is my question, and I have a poll attached: If the Nootka Crisis sparks an Anglo-Spanish war circa 1790-91, can UK and Spain still be co-belligerents against France by 1793?
How I imagine an Anglo-Spanish War occurring would have to be if the Pitt Ministry is even more aggressive on the overall issue and basically corners Spain into a fight, by escalating demands [perhaps to demand an explicit renunciation of Spanish claims north of their northernmost California mission in favor of British claims?] to where no self-respecting Spanish government can accept. Pitt would have to do this because for some reason he sees some jingoistic domestic political benefitting in fighting Spain or humiliating it, in addition to pushing out imperial boundaries a bit. Alternatively, the British government of the day simply does jingoistic marketing to public and parliament for a declaration of war on Spain to contest control of the disputed area and protest Spain's real-life claims to exclusive dominion over the Pacific shores and detention and British ship's crews and captains. Possibly higher-handed actions by Spanish "men-on-the spot" or bloodshed or British deaths or maimings, lost lives, legs, ears, that did not happen in OTL, could add fuel to such a fire.
I have a harder time seeing Spain unilaterally escalating things to war with Britain, even though they were incensed at British activity in the Pacific, simply because they knew they were a bit weaker and poorer. They might have considered holding out more, or escalating, with French support, but they did not have that in real history [because of France's internal focus on early revolutionary/constitutional changes), and I am not considering that alternative.
I think with its greater naval power and wealth and productive power, Britain would be much favored to win a fight on anywhere from a modest to a large scale. Modest scale would be Britain winning local naval marine battles off the Pacific northwest American coast and forcing Spain to concede British ownership of that coastline and its waters. Larger scale victories could involve Britain attacking, occupying, and forcing Spain to concede ownership of additional Spanish colonial territory or territories somewhere in the western hemisphere, or potentially the Far East.
After such a defeat/humiliation at British hands, I would imagine Spain would have a very bitter taste in its mouth about Britain, and be averse to voluntarily aligning with Britain on any international questions.
So, when the French Revolution radicalizes, and France gets involved with wars with European neighbors, Spain, while regarding French revolutionaries as heretical scum, will be more buitterly nursing its wounds than looking to ally with other powers, especially predatory Britain, or their little Dutch ally, against France. This sentiment would likely continue, even as the French revolutionaries go even more bonkers, kill their King, and declare themselves a Republic.
So would Spain manage to keep itself out of the French Revolutionary Wars, from 1793-1795, and later in the 1790s? Or would the French revolutionaries fail to take advantage of Spain's bitter anti-British isolationism and the opportunity to leave the Pyrenees a quiet front? Would France for war upon Spain in the 1790s despite Spanish lack of interest in one? In 1793 or some later year? Or would the Spanish, shocked by French godlessness and aggressiveness on the continent, overcome their anti-British sulk, to join the 1st Coalition against France, either in 1793. or subsequent years until France imposed its will on its continental powers in that round (1797)? Or might Spain stay neutral until France appears pretty succesful on the continent, and then join France's side, hoping to join its bandwagon against Britain, to get revenge on the latter?