ARW: How significant was the French contribution?

[Titus_Pullo]

Has it been discussed before? What would have happened if Rochambeau had failed to link up with Washington's army?

 

[jayel]

Has it been discussed before? What would have happened if Rochambeau had failed to link up with Washington's army?

Yorktown/Cornwallis is re-supplied by sea, siege fails war goes on

 

[Elfwine]

On land it might not matter (I'd rather not bet on it, but it could work with just American soldiers), on sea, as said.

 

[Nytram01]

As I recall France put a lot of money into supporting the Colonists cause. By getting involved in the war France did itself no favors. It affirmed its position as a world superpower but at the cost of its financial stability. France had bankrupted itself for American Independence - actually more so that they could stick two fingers up at the British but "for American Independence" sounds better - and didn't really recover from it until after the French Revolution.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

While the French financial contribution was important to the rebels, it was a pittance to France. Had France not done so, it would have still had to call the Estates General a mere one year later.

 

[Fiver]

Has it been discussed before? What would have happened if Rochambeau had failed to link up with Washington's army?

Without Rochambeau, Washington wouldn't have had enough troops to besiege Cornwallis. Without de Barras, Washington wouldn't have had the siege equipment to besiege Cornwallis. And without de Grasse beating the British fleet in the Battle of the Chesapeake, the siege of Cornwallis would have failed.

That's not counting the weapons and ammunition provided by the French. The French contribution was absolutely essential to American success.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Could another power helped at least partially as much? Spain may be reluctant to do hugely much, due to Mexico and Florida being close to the Colonies...

POrtugal, kinda weak by now.. Dutches, maybe? but so close to Britain, and they lost at least one war with Britain a century ago...

 

[Faeelin]

While the French financial contribution was important to the rebels, it was a pittance to France. Had France not done so, it would have still had to call the Estates General a mere one year later.

You've said this before, but I still have never heard this elsewhere.

 

[Elfwine]

While the French financial contribution was important to the rebels, it was a pittance to France. Had France not done so, it would have still had to call the Estates General a mere one year later.

I've a question. How much did that pittance influence the interest rates paid on the loans France took out?

It could be too much on top of normal expenses sort of thing even if in objective figures its not a significant amount of the debt.

 

[dgharis]

I've a question. How much did that pittance influence the interest rates paid on the loans France took out?

It could be too much on top of normal expenses sort of thing even if in objective figures its not a significant amount of the debt.

In the circumstances French support for the American rebels is merely the cherry on top of the sundae; French finances are already overstretched and would probably reach the crisis point a little later than OTL without it.

While French contributions of troops, naval support, arms, supplies, and money were essential to American success, it's important to note that from the moment of French entry the thirteen colonies became a secondary theater for the British; the war now spread to the West Indies, Europe, and India. Spain, in alliance with the French, also entered the war on the rebels' side, and British ineptitude brought the Dutch in against them as well.

At that point British resources were inadequate to the task and had to be supplemented by increasing taxes at home, which drove more and more of the country party (Tories) to side against Lord North's government and eventually brought about its fall. Shelburne's government then negotiated a peace with the rebels and their Allies which brought the war to a close.

French support was not only helpful, but vital; without it the rebels might well have lost or won only a partial victory, losing the Carolinas, Georgia, and other territory to the British in the settlement.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

You've said this before, but I still have never heard this elsewhere.

Read de Tocqueville's The Ancien Regime and the French Revolution?

de Calonne's report in 1785 had the crown 113 million in debt. The amount due to the American intervention: 1 million.

It is very much a question of nationalism, I fear: nearly every English-language source insists that the American Revolution was a cause of the French Revolution, and no French source does. Which brings us to the question of how honest and accurate the French comptrollers-general were. In the case of Necker, the answer is 'not at all' - he just made shit up, honestly, in his reports. While the crown chose to stand by them, they'd even have had a good cause to repudiate the loans for the Americans as fraudulent since Necker initiated them. De Calonne and Turgot, however, seem to have attempted to be accurate. And Turgot found the situation already so desperate as to be nearly untenable in 1774. The bulk of the debt seems to have been run up during the Seven Year's War, and Louis XV's determination to expand and modernize the Navy after the loss in said war.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Could another power helped at least partially as much? Spain may be reluctant to do hugely much, due to Mexico and Florida being close to the Colonies...

POrtugal, kinda weak by now.. Dutches, maybe? but so close to Britain, and they lost at least one war with Britain a century ago...

Nitpick: Florida was a British possession between 1763 and 1783.

I really don't see any other power providing aid to the Americans as long as the French remain neutral. The Dutch and Spanish were plenty sympathetic OTL, but that sympathy didn't get the colonists anything more than a bit of discreet under-the-table aid until France joined the war; Spain and the Netherlands were not going to risk anything that could provoke open war with Britain on their own, because neither state could win that war.

Read de Tocqueville's The Ancien Regime and the French Revolution?

de Calonne's report in 1785 had the crown 113 million in debt. The amount due to the American intervention: 1 million.

It is very much a question of nationalism, I fear: nearly every English-language source insists that the American Revolution was a cause of the French Revolution, and no French source does. Which brings us to the question of how honest and accurate the French comptrollers-general were. In the case of Necker, the answer is 'not at all' - he just made shit up, honestly, in his reports. While the crown chose to stand by them, they'd even have had a good cause to repudiate the loans for the Americans as fraudulent since Necker initiated them. De Calonne and Turgot, however, seem to have attempted to be accurate. And Turgot found the situation already so desperate as to be nearly untenable in 1774. The bulk of the debt seems to have been run up during the Seven Year's War, and Louis XV's determination to expand and modernize the Navy after the loss in said war.

Yes, the financial support of the American Revolution wasn't a big issue for France; their debt issues were a lot bigger than just that. However, one could make the argument that the American Revolution was at least somewhat important as an ideological influence on the French Revolution. If nothing else, Lafayette never would have been a prominent figure in the early days of the French Revolution if he hadn't made a name for himself fighting in the American Revolution.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

And the lack of Lafayette makes the Revolution bloodier, faster, but ultimately Lafayette's vision for France was not the one that prevailed: he was the only one paying attention to the Americans, and no one was paying attention to him.