France, Spain and the Netherlands all had love-hate relationships with both Britain and eachother. Except the Netherlands and Spain, and Britain and France, who just outright hated eachother at the time. At the time, Britain was the most powerful country the world had ever seen, a chance for its main three competitors to deal a decent blow would be great for them. Again, in the end the loss of the US didn't mean too much, as India remained under British control, but the threat was enough to show Britain wasn't untouchable.
nope i was there. it was that big. If the numbers are correct i really can't judge. But there where a shit ton of people. I acutaly flew over the area in a super puma. Everywehere orange. I am not an expert in judging the large numbers of people, all i can say is it was a shit ton. Nope. Atleast not if you ask every non-serbian. I was stationed all over kosovo. But the maini swiss/austrian camp is camp casablanca (suva reka) its betwen pristina and prizren.
At the time the Netherlands was a protestant country too, you know. Would would have happened if the three would have teamed up? Maybe the Netherlands could have conquered a nice bunch of territory from the British? Typically Dutch. Always as serious as a block of concrete (if that'd be a good example), but when there's a soccer ball in the game, everyone freaks out. And that's a UN camp? Or a NATO camp?
Personally, I think the Dutch could have, maybe, increased their lands in New England, reconquered Ceylon and increased their Caribbean territories. The Dutch weren't people to annex huge countries, they did it for wealth, not power. That's probably what kept'em alive. If their position to others would be too imperialist, they would have had huge wars for sure.
The 18th century didn't turn out that well for the Dutch compared to 17th century... Amsterdam's position on the globe was pretty much overtaken by London in the early 18th century...
If I'm correct, the Inquisition ordered the execution of 2 million Dutch citizens for not believing the exact same as they did. Fucking disgusting. I doubt they could. At the time, Britain was still the world's largest power, by far, and had ridiculous amounts of resources. Now, if the Dutch would've indeed kept all their holdings in North America, India and Africa, they would've played a lot bigger factor in the American Revolution, but in the end, I don't know how much would've changed.
But in the scenario of the Dutch, the French and the Spanish teaming up on Britain, they could have divided fairly large pieces of territory. The Dutch would have probably cared for the wealthiest parts, while the Spanish and the French would go for the large areas.
When the US gained their independence, the Dutch had already lost their North American, African and Indian holdings. If anything they'd try and get those back. If anything they'd try and recapture those. The French and Spanish would want to make the British less powerful, and if they'd continue, my guess is they would go for India. What would've been interesting is that the French, Spanish and Dutch actually invaded the British Isles and managed to split India between the three of them.
And then the French and Spanish would have got pissed at each other and brought the three into a war.
I don't know, if we are to assume the rest of history went as it did, but then the Dutch, French and Spanish would've gained India, in the Napoleonic war, the French would've had another front to assault the Spanish and Dutch, and maybe would've even gained the Spanish East Indies, making them insanely wealthy and powerful.
Pretty much. Would be interesting to see. With Napoleon being absent in India, the Spanish and Dutch might even manage to win there. Although, Napoleon did win against the Dutch and made them into some sort of vassal.
Napoleon would have made everyone his bitch and united all of Europe against those evil Russians. All this talk about Napoleon makes me think of Dr.House
I don't know. Many front wars mostly don't turn out well for aggressors, looking at Hitler, Wilhelm the Second and Napoleon himself. They would have to divide their forces more, so it would only get in the way. It would make Spain ridiculously powerful though. And maybe the Dutch government would be able to flee to India, so the European Netherlands would only be occupied, and not made puppet. And in the end, that would mean we wouldn't have a king, but still be a very decentralized federal state.
Hmm, I don't think so. The British had invaded the Iberian peninsula, and France would've had to have forces in India to protect it from invasions. Especially with making the mistake of invading Russia, France still wouldn't have succeeded. True, I'd say either France or Spain would've come out of that very powerful. However, at the time, Spain was a diminishing power due to its massive intolerance. Losing Mexico was probably what made them a lot less powerful.
First lesson in warfare: Thou shalt not invade Russia. The terrain makes it very hard to fight in, and it has always been. You can't take Russia, not even with mayor forces. But that was around 5 years in the Napoleonic Wars. By the time they would have captured India in our alternate scenario, Mexico would merely be a little unstable, but I think the capturing of India would've given them such a boost they would be able to recover from the unstableness in Mexico much better than they did in real life.
What about the Mongols? Its better not to attack Russia at all, or better yet to prepare if you do (which Napoleon and Hitler neglected to do) besides according to both British and U.S intelligence during the 2nd world war the Soviet union was supposed to fall in 10-20 days.
