DBWI: France lost the 4 years war

As we know, IOTL, French victory in the 4 years war (1756-1760) forced Britain to cede its North American colonies to France as well as Gibraltar and its Caribbean colonies to Spain. Also, Austria gained Silesia from Prussia and Russia gained East Prussia. How different would the world look if the outcome had been reversed?

One question I have is would this butterfly the former British colonies’ revolution?
 
Well, for starters the Electorate of Brandenburg likely retains some influence for a longer period than IOTL. True, economic realities mean she can't keep her disproportionately large professional, salaried army forever nor, but you could see a Dutch-style "Golden Age" where she serves a respectable decisive weight for events in Northern Europe rather than finding herself as a pawn and battleground in the Dano-Swedish rivalry of the following decades. Can this butterfly away the War of the Arctic and prevent the eventual Swedish dominance of trade in and out of northern and centeral Russia? That could have huge impacts on Russia as it essentially shuts them off from the outside world by hostile Scandinavian and Turko-Tartar stranglehold on her west facing harbors.
 
Last edited:
OOC: It’s almost impossible for Britain to lose the 13 colonies to France given the manpower difference. It can cede the Ohio Valley to France though.
 
OOC: It’s almost impossible for Britain to lose the 13 colonies to France given the manpower difference. It can cede the Ohio Valley to France though.
Yep. In the end the North American war was about control of the Ohio Valley.
 
As we know, IOTL, French victory in the 4 years war (1756-1760) forced Britain to cede its North American colonies to France as well as Gibraltar and its Caribbean colonies to Spain. Also, Austria gained Silesia from Prussia and Russia gained East Prussia. How different would the world look if the outcome had been reversed?

One question I have is would this butterfly the former British colonies’ revolution?
You are missing the bigger picture. The greatest effect of the four years war wasn’t on North America,but on India. France gained all of Britain’s possessions there and became fabulously rich.

With these colonies intact,the British most likely wouldn’t have fell into a civil war.

Also in reverse,I’d also say that without France’s extra territories and colonial wealth,the French most likely would have had civil problems of their own given their immense population and existing debt.The north American colonies provided a place by which the French could vent their excess population to.
 
You are missing the bigger picture. The greatest effect of the four years war wasn’t on North America,but on India. France gained all of Britain’s possessions there and became fabulously rich.

With these colonies intact,the British most likely wouldn’t have fell into a civil war.

Also in reverse,I’d also say that without France’s extra territories and colonial wealth,the French most likely would have had civil problems of their own given their immense population and existing debt.The north American colonies provided a place by which the French could vent their excess population to.

(Ooc: ok... it sounds likr Britain faced a massively crushing defeat here. Like, they lost EVERYTHING. That wasent white the reading I was getting it even very realistic)
 
Last edited:
(Ooc: ok... it sounds likr Britain faced a massively crushing defeat here. Like, they lost EVERYTHING. That wasent white the reading I was getting it even very realistic)
OOC:There’s no way for Britain to lose all of its’ Carribean colonies if it wasn’t a massive crushing defeat to be honest.If the Royal navy was intact,this would not have happened.
 
OOC: It’s almost impossible for Britain to lose the 13 colonies to France given the manpower difference. It can cede the Ohio Valley to France though.

OOC: The idea is that in return for withdrawing from certain areas under French control, the French would get the 13 colonies.
 
(Ooc: ok... it sounds likr Britain faced a massively crushing defeat here. Like, they lost EVERYTHING. That wasent white the reading I was getting it even very realistic)

OOC: this is the point of the DBWI, basically. If such a crushing defeat is necessary for the world I set out, sobeit
 
You are missing the bigger picture. The greatest effect of the four years war wasn’t on North America,but on India. France gained all of Britain’s possessions there and became fabulously rich.

With these colonies intact,the British most likely wouldn’t have fell into a civil war.

Also in reverse,I’d also say that without France’s extra territories and colonial wealth,the French most likely would have had civil problems of their own given their immense population and existing debt.The north American colonies provided a place by which the French could vent their excess population to.

Do you think this butterflies Napoleon’s coup of King Louis XVII?
 
Do you think this butterflies Napoleon’s coup of King Louis XVII?
Probably,but the Ancien Regime was already showing a lot of of internal decay in the government,so it’s collapse was inevitable. Although,I do wonder if it would be more dramatic,like a revolution for example. Even Napoleon’s coup wasn’t that dramatic. He just rendered the king a figurehead and ruled like the Japanese Shogun.Overall,while there were a lot of changes,the nobility remained,only having most of their privileges axed.


OOC: The idea is that in return for withdrawing from certain areas under French control, the French would get the 13 colonies.
OOC:Unlikely that would happen. Britain’s unlikely to lose control of the 13 colonies even with the colonies cut off from Britain and massive French regulars sent to North America(we see from the way the ARW was conducted that guerilla warfare will render French attempts unsuccessful).
 
OOC:There’s no way for Britain to lose all of its’ Carribean colonies if it wasn’t a massive crushing defeat to be honest.If the Royal navy was intact,this would not have happened.
OOC: this is the point of the DBWI, basically. If such a crushing defeat is necessary for the world I set out, sobeit

(OOC: I'm just saying its borderline ASB to be able to impose such harsh terms on every single front as the result of a single 4 year war without Britain basically having ceased to exist as a functioning state. Surrendering its American possessions? Certainly possible in a peace treaty if they're swapping them for positions elsewhere as part of a broader realignment; if they won in India and lost and the Americas, for example, possibly due to earlier Revolutionary sentiment in the colonies hamstringing the war effort, or as part of a trade for Hannover and a division of influence in the Germanies as a hedge against Austrian dominance. I'm just trying to get a scale of how *bleeped* up Britain ought to have been in the post-war years so I can accurately contribute.)
 
(OOC: I'm just saying its borderline ASB to be able to impose such harsh terms on every single front as the result of a single 4 year war without Britain basically having ceased to exist as a functioning state. Surrendering its American possessions? Certainly possible in a peace treaty if they're swapping them for positions elsewhere as part of a broader realignment; if they won in India and lost and the Americas, for example, possibly due to earlier Revolutionary sentiment in the colonies hamstringing the war effort, or as part of a trade for Hannover and a division of influence in the Germanies as a hedge against Austrian dominance. I'm just trying to get a scale of how *bleeped* up Britain ought to have been in the post-war years so I can accurately contribute.)
OOC: Most likely Hannover has been returned as part of a deal in this scenario. France will be able to impose such harsh terms if the RN got completely crushed and left Britain itself vulnerable to invasion. I’d imagine this would be the case here,otherwise it’s unlikely that Britain could not retake the Caribbeans. If it loses the navy though,it loses the rest of its’ wars in the colonies.

Although,I’m not saying they can get the 13 colonies.

I think a major pod here is that Spain joined in with France immediately rather than wait a couple of years,and this led to a major defeat of the RN.

And why would France/Spain swap anything with Britain if they won?
 
Last edited:
(OOC: I'm just saying its borderline ASB to be able to impose such harsh terms on every single front as the result of a single 4 year war without Britain basically having ceased to exist as a functioning state. Surrendering its American possessions? Certainly possible in a peace treaty if they're swapping them for positions elsewhere as part of a broader realignment; if they won in India and lost and the Americas, for example, possibly due to earlier Revolutionary sentiment in the colonies hamstringing the war effort, or as part of a trade for Hannover and a division of influence in the Germanies as a hedge against Austrian dominance. I'm just trying to get a scale of how *bleeped* up Britain ought to have been in the post-war years so I can accurately contribute.)

OOC: It basically fell into civil war.
 
OOC: Most likely Hannover has been returned as part of a deal in this scenario. France will be able to impose such harsh terms if the RN got completely crushed and left Britain itself vulnerable to invasion. I’d imagine this would be the case here,otherwise it’s unlikely that Britain could not retake the Caribbeans. If it loses the navy though,it loses the rest of its’ wars in the colonies.

Although,I’m not saying they can get the 13 colonies.

I think a major pod here is that Spain joined in with France immediately rather than wait a couple of years,and this led to a major defeat of the RN.

And why would France/Spain swap anything with Britain if they won?

OOC: Yeah, basically. And To ensure their dominance of the continent.
 
What happens to New France in this TL? Do the British annex it? And what about OTL Canadian Aboriginals, without the Canadian Republic do they assimilate into British colonial society?
 
Probably,but the Ancien Regime was already showing a lot of of internal decay in the government,so it’s collapse was inevitable. Although,I do wonder if it would be more dramatic,like a revolution for example. Even Napoleon’s coup wasn’t that dramatic. He just rendered the king a figurehead and ruled like the Japanese Shogun.Overall,while there were a lot of changes,the nobility remained,only having most of their privileges axed.

Ruled like the Shogun indeed... decenteralization and all. The Ancien Regime, for all its flaws, was highly successful at managing France proper and exploiting the colonial wealth via the centeralization policies of Louis XIV. Napoleon had, on the other hand, diden't have the same trust of the "nobility of the robe" despite being the son of one of them and his gutting of the bureaucratic-aristocracy with politically friendly "Marshal-Generals" from the colonies really did a number on the tax revenues to the central treasury and the influence Paris could express on its vast colonial Empire. In a timeline where France has a more reasonably sized Empire, she probably avoids the "Decades of Devolution" by being able to provide a little more of a focus, while Britain will be stuck with the headache of trying to manage ambitious underlings in a world-spanning Imperium.
 
Ruled like the Shogun indeed... decenteralization and all. The Ancien Regime, for all its flaws, was highly successful at managing France proper and exploiting the colonial wealth via the centeralization policies of Louis XIV. Napoleon had, on the other hand, diden't have the same trust of the "nobility of the robe" despite being the son of one of them and his gutting of the bureaucratic-aristocracy with politically friendly "Marshal-Generals" from the colonies really did a number on the tax revenues to the central treasury and the influence Paris could express on its vast colonial Empire. In a timeline where France has a more reasonably sized Empire, she probably avoids the "Decades of Devolution" by being able to provide a little more of a focus, while Britain will be stuck with the headache of trying to manage ambitious underlings in a world-spanning Imperium.
The colonies were happy and content,and well developed as well,due to the decentralized nature of government. There was practically no chance of ruling colonies well without decentralized rule,given the vast distance between France and the rest of the colonies.What you call centralized rule of the colonies was nothing other than brutal exploitation,with most of the money sent to metropolitan France rather than being used on the development of the colonies themselves.

Just look at the smouldering wreck that the Spanish colonies became.

As for the Marshal-Generals,they were largely men from humble backgrounds without any ties to the aristocracy. They all earned their positions through merit. This is a huge step up from the kleptocratic Ancien Regime.
 
Top