Convention of Kloster Zeven - need some advice

Bit of an obscure question. I'm writing an amateur alternate history novel on the 7 Years War and I'm having trouble finding source material.

During the 7 Years War (or 3rd Silesian War if you prefer), the forces of Hanover (co-dominion with the Kingdom of Great Britain) were defeated by the French in 1757 and reached an agreement in the German village of Zeven.

The beloved 2nd son of George II, the Duke of Cumberland, was given authority to negotiate by his father and worked out a deal effectively allowing much of Hanover to be occupied and the neutrality of the beaten Army of Hanover for the duration of the war, half of which would be interned. British-Hanover allies Hesse and Brunswick were largely under occupation by the French as well. Their forces still remaining under Cumberland's control would be dispersed by the treaty and sent home.

In the meantime, British-Hanover ally Frederick II of Prussia was in deep trouble to the east against Austria and Russia. If the French were allowed to attack Prussia, as well this might have been the final nail in the Prussian coffin.

However, George II ordered the Convention reneged and his forces reentered the war unexpectedly, the French forces somewhat foolishly having failed to enforce several of these decrees, leaving the relatively intact Hanoverian/Hessian/Brunswick/Lippe (paid for by Britain) force to counterattack and prevent Frederick the II from facing a fourth front. Eventually British soldiers arrived to support.

What if the French had been more diligent in enforcing the terms of the capitulation?

What if the French had immediately disarmed Hesse and Brunswick's soldiers and sent them home?

What if they'd immediately forced half of the Army of Hanover into internment per the terms?

Details are sketchy but I assume that the terms would allow for the return of Hanover to George II after the war (please contradict me if you feel this is incorrect). Non-Prussian prisoners (most Prussia soldiers from Prussia's western duchies were already fighting on the eastern front)on all sides were immediately exchanged and France would not assault the remainder of Hanover not under occupation.

Would Great Britain have attempted to reenter the war if half the Army of Hanover were still in internment and their other German allies dispersed?

How would this affect the American and Indian conflict Britain waged against France, waging at the same time?

I know this is esoteric but I can't find much information on the details.

If you have any good source material on this subject, please let me know.

The books I have on the subject almost completely gloss over what the other German Princes were doing when their Duchies were overrun.
I can only imagine they regretted entering a war for no other reason than receiving subsidies only to find their patrimonies under French occupation (I doubt they made money in the long run).
 
I've been considering this exact same thing for a timeline I'm planning. Maybe a bigger victory at Hastenbeck? OTL d'Estrees decided to retreat when he thought he was losing. Maillebois or d'Orleans wrongly informed him a a strong force is turning his flank, and that, combined with the fact that one of his regiments in the right wing was pushed back, made the French retreat. When he realized his mistake and that Cumberland was also retreating it was too late. Allied Army successfully escaped. Maybe have that message never come because the messenger's horse fell and the man got injured or something. D'Estrees sends a few battalions to plug the gap on his right and his troops go on fighting, resulting in a much heavier defeat for the Allies. Soon Hanover was occupied and Cumberland would be in a much weaker position. Oh and Richelieu replaced d'Estrees just a couple days after Hastebenck and he made such a lousy deal.
The other option is to replace D'Estrees before the campaign in spring or winter because the marshal got sick or something. A likely choice, instead of Richelieu would be Maillebois. His father was a hero, he had a great military career and a lot support in Paris among the King's ministers. He did serve in this campaign, directing logistics. D'Estrees was overly cautious and slow and he and Maillbeois disagreed a lot. If he commanded the French would move much faster altogether and Cumberland might be defeated even sooner than OTL and of course, a much harsher convention. Allied soldiers would be forced to lay down their arms, probably won't be allowed to garrison Stade and Hessian and Brunswick troops would be quickly sent off. That way, the French can move against Halberstadt and/or Magdeburg and maybe sent a bigger detachment to Soubise, changing the things at Rossbach. From then on, things will go downhill for both Prussia and Britain as the great victory at Rossbach ws one of the things that encouraged them to revoke the Convention. If Frederick had, say a Phyrric victory and the Army of Observation was unarmed, broken up, and partially in captivity, there would be no hope for them. With the Russians coming from the east, Sweden joining and now France attacking from the west Frederick would be defeated by 1759, IMO.
You know how Prussia would be dismembered. France would get the Southern Netherlands, becoming an even more of a threat to the Dutch and the British. As for the British I guess the French would exchange Hanover and some other German lands for Acadia, maybe some Indian territories...It's hard to guess now, I'd have to look some things up.
So, that's about all I could do. Hope it helped. :)
And by the way, I love all this huge interest on the 18th century around here in the last couple weeks
 
I've been considering this exact same thing for a timeline I'm planning. Maybe a bigger victory at Hastenbeck? OTL d'Estrees decided to retreat when he thought he was losing. Maillebois or d'Orleans wrongly informed him a a strong force is turning his flank, and that, combined with the fact that one of his regiments in the right wing was pushed back, made the French retreat. When he realized his mistake and that Cumberland was also retreating it was too late. Allied Army successfully escaped. Maybe have that message never come because the messenger's horse fell and the man got injured or something. D'Estrees sends a few battalions to plug the gap on his right and his troops go on fighting, resulting in a much heavier defeat for the Allies. Soon Hanover was occupied and Cumberland would be in a much weaker position. Oh and Richelieu replaced d'Estrees just a couple days after Hastebenck and he made such a lousy deal.
The other option is to replace D'Estrees before the campaign in spring or winter because the marshal got sick or something. A likely choice, instead of Richelieu would be Maillebois. His father was a hero, he had a great military career and a lot support in Paris among the King's ministers. He did serve in this campaign, directing logistics. D'Estrees was overly cautious and slow and he and Maillbeois disagreed a lot. If he commanded the French would move much faster altogether and Cumberland might be defeated even sooner than OTL and of course, a much harsher convention. Allied soldiers would be forced to lay down their arms, probably won't be allowed to garrison Stade and Hessian and Brunswick troops would be quickly sent off. That way, the French can move against Halberstadt and/or Magdeburg and maybe sent a bigger detachment to Soubise, changing the things at Rossbach. From then on, things will go downhill for both Prussia and Britain as the great victory at Rossbach ws one of the things that encouraged them to revoke the Convention. If Frederick had, say a Phyrric victory and the Army of Observation was unarmed, broken up, and partially in captivity, there would be no hope for them. With the Russians coming from the east, Sweden joining and now France attacking from the west Frederick would be defeated by 1759, IMO.
You know how Prussia would be dismembered. France would get the Southern Netherlands, becoming an even more of a threat to the Dutch and the British. As for the British I guess the French would exchange Hanover and some other German lands for Acadia, maybe some Indian territories...It's hard to guess now, I'd have to look some things up.
So, that's about all I could do. Hope it helped. :)
And by the way, I love all this huge interest on the 18th century around here in the last couple weeks

Thanks, much appreciated.

What happened to Hesse and Brunswick (and for that matter, Hanover) while under occupation gets glossed over in the history books.

Beyond a reference to the Hanover population being outraged by French soldiers and Hesse and Brunswick being "occupied", very little is said.

I have to believe that the princes of Hesse, Brunswick and Lippe wished they'd just stayed out of it.

Do you think they might lose territories in a peace where Hanover and Prussia are dismembered?

They went against the holy Roman Emperor.

Maybe lose some exclaves or border territories, or worse?
 
If the snecario is that Hanover falls to France, mostly or in its entirity, how would France react in the negotiations?

Obviously, on the face, their first choice would be to get back anything they lost: Quebec, some Indian trading factories.

Would this be the best idea for France?

Canada was a sinkhole of money, outnumbered 30 to 1 demographically by the British colonies (a percentage which would grow worse) and depended on France maintaining a line of supply in the face of the Royal Navy. No doubt many might prefer to simply let Canada go provided they kept fishing rights. In the long run, they had to believe Britain would win in North America.

However, Britain was France's long time enemy on the continent as well as in the colonies. Much of Britain's power stemmed from subsidizing Hanover's army and local German princes, usually with the Netherlands and Austria as allies.

By eliminating Hanover, France signficantly reduces a longtime threat, especially if they trade for the Austrian Netherlands. Effectively, France's borders were be permanantly protected. The Dutch Republic was in decline, Austria would have few reasons to intervene, Spain was an ally and in decline militarily, Hanover would probably end up with some German prince whom had no reason to support Britain and the smaller German states known for leasing Regiments (Hesse, Brunswick, Lippe) would have a tougher time getting their armies to where Britain wanted them to be.

Britain's power would be reduced to financial subsidies (less likely to do so as they would have fewer reasons to intervene in Europe) and rivalling France overseas.

This massive strategic improvement seems to outweigh the declining revenues of an expensive colony in Canada (New France).

This doesn't even note the financial, demographic and military advantages of obtaining the Austrian Netherlands.
 
The Treaty of Versailles between France and Austria sad that France has to help against Prussia. When Austria gets Silesia back they give the Austrian Netherlands to France. But not directly. I think it was to be given to Infante Philip, Duke of Parma. He would cede his duchy to Austria and get the AN. Maybe France manages to annex a few cities on the Belgian/French border but that's all. It was a fair deal, AN for Silesia and Parma, kind of what was done in 1748 (similar). But the treaty of 1758 canceled this and I don't know why they did it and what were the French planning at the time. With a bigger victory in 1757 and Hanover completely out of the war this might be butterflied away and France still gets the AN.
Now about the colonies...It depends on how long they fight. If the British government thinks they're defeated (Fort carillon, failure at Louisbourg in 1757, klosterzeven and all) they could make an early peace. Of course, france is gonna want a lot in exchange for Hanover and George II will have enough influence to get it back, even if they have to cede Acadia back and something in India like Madras. That's not very likely, but plausible. But if GB makes some gains then its Louisbourg and Quebec (say they fight until 1759/60, which is much more likely) that means Hannover and friends for Quebec, Louisbourg and Ohio. Probably nothing in India if all in America is regained. Not sure about the Caribbean islands, depends if they take any. Hanover would stay under George as it is actually a separate state. Unlike so many fake personal unions, this one is real.
Now, for Hesse, Brunswick and those small states. They probably weren't treated much better than Hanover but I don't see them losing anything. They were defeated, their men killed and women most likely raped so that's pretty much enough. Not sure if anyone would want anything. Palatinate was to get a few small parts near Kleve and maybe Minden (if they're luck) and Saxony Cottbus and those few small enclaves near her. Magdeburg maybe. Even if not, I don't think they would demand anything from Hesse-Kassel with Magdeburg available.
Yes, Canada was perhaps a money drain, but it was theirs and it was more than just money. Land, prestige and all that. And they knew it would be hard to keep any fishing rights without their actual presence in the colonies. And they also feared being converted to Anglicanism or something similar.
So, basically if they win earlier and manage to keep the deal with the Austrians they get AN for helping with Silesia and ceding Parma (Philip gets it, but it's a puppet state. Maybe they give him a king's title.) And in exchange for Hanover and other parts of Germany thy get back their colonies and its all good for France and the British will be very angry and the Americans angrier as they financed and fought the war in America and then lost it all for a duchy somewhere in Germany. But then again they would be afraid to rebel because France is next door. And then even bigger problems appear.
 
Yes, Canada was perhaps a money drain, but it was theirs and it was more than just money. Land, prestige and all that. And they knew it would be hard to keep any fishing rights without their actual presence in the colonies. And they also feared being converted to Anglicanism or something similar.

I think forced conversions were a thing of the past.
 
Were they? There were some serious problems Catholics vs Anglicans in England just 60-70 years before. While they may not be outright forced conversion by the British authorities tensions between British Protestants and French Catholics would be huge. That's why Quebec wanted autonomy and religious freedom. it doesn't seem so far-fetched
 
Were they? There were some serious problems Catholics vs Anglicans in England just 60-70 years before. While they may not be outright forced conversion by the British authorities tensions between British Protestants and French Catholics would be huge. That's why Quebec wanted autonomy and religious freedom. it doesn't seem so far-fetched

I don't think so. Britain never attempted to forcibly convert the Acadians after 1740 nor did they with the Quebecois after 1763. That is just asking for trouble and rebellion and not worth the time. In fact, most British Commanders-in-Chief in Canada in the late 18th century were criticized for making too many concessions to keep French laws and traditions intact.
 
I didn't say they were going to be converted, it's not the Middle Ages. Still, defeated Catholics were scared they were gonna get killed or chased away so they wanted their own religion. And the British did their best to stop the Catholics from getting positions in the administration etc. because they feared these were Jacobites.
And yeah, a lot of concessions but they managed to hang on to the region even today with not so much trouble. See Northern Ireland and you get what I mean :D
 
I didn't say they were going to be converted, it's not the Middle Ages. Still, defeated Catholics were scared they were gonna get killed or chased away so they wanted their own religion. And the British did their best to stop the Catholics from getting positions in the administration etc. because they feared these were Jacobites.
And yeah, a lot of concessions but they managed to hang on to the region even today with not so much trouble. See Northern Ireland and you get what I mean :D

I think that Britain had a pretty good handle on Acadia and Quebec largely due to their absolute control of the seas and French Canada's small population.

As long as Britain didn't get too oppressive, the French realized they had nothing to gain by rebellion. They would lose.
 
I cannot contribute to the discussion regarding Colonies, however there is one thing I've always wondered about the deal with the Austrian Netherlands being ceded to a French Puppet.

Would this new State be considered a part of the Holy Roman Empire?
 
I cannot contribute to the discussion regarding Colonies, however there is one thing I've always wondered about the deal with the Austrian Netherlands being ceded to a French Puppet.

Would this new State be considered a part of the Holy Roman Empire?

I am assuming not. The Dutch Republic left long before (as did Switzerland, etc). I don't know if the Austrian Netherlands were still considered part of the HRE at this point. Certainly, France wouldn't tolerate it. There was a precedent established. France Absorbed Lorraine, which I believe was part of the HRE.
 
Yes, Lorraine was a part of the HRE. In 1738 Stanislaw became Duke of Lorraine and the duchy was a French puppet state, but I think it was still nominally a vassal of the HRE. However, the Emperor probably had no say whatsoever in anything about Lorraine. When Stanislaw died in 1766 Louis XV simply annexed the Duchy, considering it inherited since his wife was Stanislaw's daughter. But the ANL are a problem. If a Bourbon prince was to be placed as a ruler (Infante Philip was to switch it for Parma like I said) the French won't eventually inherit the Duchy. He should be a vassal of the HRE, technically. If there is a way to become independent from the Empire, they might try it, or the French may want it in the peace negotiations. That would be an easy way to solve the problem. I'm sure the Diet can figure something out, as the Bourbons may not want to be subjected to the will of the Emperor and MT. But then the Bishopric of Liege would be a part of the Imperial territory, splitting the new Bourbon duchy in half.
 
I'll go one by one, as it always annoys me when I ask a bunch of questions and people just give generic replies that don't answer them all.

What if the French had been more diligent in enforcing the terms of the capitulation?... What if they'd immediately forced half of the Army of Hanover into internment per the terms?

Depends on how diligent! I think it's likely Hannover would have still re-entered the war, as they still have half their army, but they would have obviously been a much weakened force. France would likely defeat them again, re-occupy Hannover, and would probably make it to Prussia, accelerating Prussia's decline. You would likely get a Russo-Franco-Austro-Prussian treaty of East Prussia to Russia, Silesia to Austria and the AN to France (given they've helped defeat Prussia). What happens to Hannover is another question I'd discuss below.

What if the French had immediately disarmed Hesse and Brunswick's soldiers and sent them home?

Hesse and Brunswick were small powers in the scheme of things. I don't think they'd make much difference, especially as some of them could be rehired into British armies.

Details are sketchy but I assume that the terms would allow for the return of Hanover to George II after the war (please contradict me if you feel this is incorrect). Non-Prussian prisoners (most Prussia soldiers from Prussia's western duchies were already fighting on the eastern front)on all sides were immediately exchanged and France would not assault the remainder of Hanover not under occupation.

This is very much an open question. The monarchy would likely want Hannover returned, but parliament will be up in arms about giving back British gains for the benefit of Hannover. One of the chief political attacks on George II in this age was that he was skewed towards Hannoverian interests. In our timeline the King's friends were in power and signed a very generous peace to prevent Pitt growing in power - there was a lot of opposition in parliament. With the inflammatory Britain-vs-Hannover issue here, it's possible Pitt would have a lot of backers and Bute would not be able to keep a majority. If Pitt is returned to power, the result would likely be a longer war at sea, which likely means Britain scoops up more colonies. The Pittites being back in government has ramifications for America down the line.

Would Great Britain have attempted to reenter the war if half the Army of Hanover were still in internment and their other German allies dispersed?

Britain wouldn't need to "re-enter" the war. Britain never stopped fighting it. Hannover was another country, just in personal union and thus alliance with Britain.

How would this affect the American and Indian conflict Britain waged against France, waging at the same time?

Wouldn't affect it at all until it came to peace talks.
 
Hesse and Brunswick were small powers in the scheme of things. I don't think they'd make much difference, especially as some of them could be rehired into British armies.

True but they made up a substancial portion of Britain's subsidized forces in Europe.

This is very much an open question. The monarchy would likely want Hannover returned, but parliament will be up in arms about giving back British gains for the benefit of Hannover. One of the chief political attacks on George II in this age was that he was skewed towards Hannoverian interests. In our timeline the King's friends were in power and signed a very generous peace to prevent Pitt growing in power - there was a lot of opposition in parliament. With the inflammatory Britain-vs-Hannover issue here, it's possible Pitt would have a lot of backers and Bute would not be able to keep a majority. If Pitt is returned to power, the result would likely be a longer war at sea, which likely means Britain scoops up more colonies. The Pittites being back in government has ramifications for America down the line.

I agree that many Britons would feel the same, though they probably didn't like the idea of a Franko-Austrian alliance dominating the continent if Prussia fell (however long such an alliance would last).


Britain wouldn't need to "re-enter" the war. Britain never stopped fighting it. Hannover was another country, just in personal union and thus alliance with Britain.

Correct, I misspoke. I meant to say the British-backed western German subsidized army that was protecting Hanover and, to Frederick's purposes, prevented a direct French assault on Brandenburg (which would have likely ended the war).

Britain would likely keep fighting in America unless George II demanded an immediate halt (which he might). George III might as well though for different reasons.

Wouldn't affect it at all until it came to peace talks.[/QUOTE]

What do you think the British reaction would be if they had to give up Canada or some other significant asset (Possibly Martinique or/and Guadaloupe) for George II to get back Hanover?
 
What do you think the British reaction would be if they had to give up Canada or some other significant asset (Possibly Martinique or/and Guadaloupe) for George II to get back Hanover?

Territory in Europe was considered to be worth far more than territory elsewhere in the world by the main continental powers. That would mean that Britain would likely have to give up Canada, Guadeloupe AND Martinique to get Hannover back. That's on top of everything they already gave back in our timeline.

If the Bute government forced it through, with the backing of George III, I can see major backlash. There could be riots in both England and the American colonies. George III was already on rocky ground with parliament, and I can see the Whigs causing the Bute government to collapse. This would likely provoke a constitutional struggle between the King and parliament about reducing the King's autonomy in choosing governments, which the King would probably lose.
 
If the Bute government forced it through, with the backing of George III, I can see major backlash. There could be riots in both England and the American colonies. George III was already on rocky ground with parliament, and I can see the Whigs causing the Bute government to collapse. This would likely provoke a constitutional struggle between the King and parliament about reducing the King's autonomy in choosing governments, which the King would probably lose.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how enthousiastically George III would be about Hanover. He mouthed off about caring only for England so he might be ok with letting it go.

Still, when he came to the throne, George III never allowed Britain's interests overrule Hanover's interests. When the colonies revolted, he "leased" Hanoverian regiments to Britain, not GAVE them (Hanover's regiments served mainly in Europe, not America).

When Hanover wanted to join German trade groups, against British will, George III told Hanover's ministers to do what was best for them, no Britain.

To be fair, George III took his job seriously as Elector even if he claimed not to care.

George II would give anything back for Hanover. In fact, I wonder if Britain's Parliament, even with Ministrial backing, would willingly give back so much for Hanover or if they would just flatout refuse.

Many Britons felt Hanover was a drag on the nation and were better off without the continental obligations. This may be shortsighted as, though expensive to defend, Hanover's position and regiments allowed Britain to be a secondary power on the continent itself, rather than just a seapower.

Losing Hanover would have massive strategic consequences. Britain often united with the Austrian Netherlands (sponsored by Austria), local german states sponsored by Britain, and the Dutch Republic against France. Without Hanover, Britain would have less ability and interest to oppose France on the mainland. This may lead long term to France conquered the Austrian Netherlands and possibly domineering the Dutch Republic.
 
Top