Different French strategy in the French - Indian War

During the French - Indian War (1754 - 1763) the Commander in Chief of the French military forces Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Grozon Montcalm's fundamentally disagreed over the choice of strategy with the Governor General of the colony, Pierre de Rigaud, Marquis de Vaudreuil-Cavagnial.

Montcalm wished to fight in the European manner with planned campaigns, armies, artillery, sieges, battles. Whereas, the latter wanted to fight according to colonial methods namely extending fortifications; consistently repelling English incursions, "defending the soil of our frontiers foot by foot against the enemy;" fighting defensively; raiding extensively; and, most importantly, securing and relying heavily on Native participation.

To my mind the latter's strategy makes more sense, noting the adverse disposition of forces between New France and British North America, what difference would a change of strategy have entailed for New France? Would it have just prolonged the war or is there a possibility that New France could have survived the conflict if the Governor - General had his way?
 
That probably works well to save the core of Canada itself - the future Lower and Upper Canada - but also belies how numerous the British-American colonists were and unlike colonial conflicts of the past, had William Pitt actively sending troops and supplies in force over to help them out. It also is worth noting the British did adapt to the "Indian way" of fighting in later years of the war, from the Forbes Expedition of 1758 laying out well-defended supply lines before capturing Fort Duquesne to Rogers' Rangers taking Detroit in 1760 as an irregular company. Most of New France in this scenario sans barely-saved *the Canadas will still be far too lightly-defended and manned to resist the onslaught of Anglo-American forces.
 
This is a conflict that I don't have a lot of knowledge about and, it has piqued my interest.

Do you have any books that you would recommend that I read about the conflict? As I was considering buying a copy of Montacalm and Wolfe.
 
It doesn't seem like Montcalm's original strategy would have worked well without significant reinforcements and supplies from the homeland, and France couldn't spare too much more what with the concurrent war against Britain and Prussia going on in Europe.

Now, if Prussia actually does fall, barring any further Miracles of Brandenburg, the British would be forced to either sue for peace or commit more troops to the continent, but even with her remaining allies, they would be extremely hard-pressed and I believe they would have asked for a peace treaty if the Prussians were knocked out. That likely saves Canada and Louisiana for the moment.
 
I know it won’t be enough, but during the 1757 Battle on Snowshoes, Captain Robert Rodgers nearly died after his unit was ambushed by a mixed troop of French regulars, Canadiens, and Indians. Let’s imagine that Robert Rodgers died on January 21, 1757.

This event could reverse the application of light forces during this war. The defeat of Rodgers Rangers, his death and the lack of commitment to muster and equip such light forces among the British commanders could lead to progressive disuse of such forces on the British side. On the opposite side, the Frenchmen had numerous native allies and militiamen who were used to the climate and "la petite guerre".

In OTL, the usefulness of Rogers' company during 1756 and 1757 prompted the British to form a second ranger company, which was soon followed by more. By early 1758, the rangers under Robert Rodger had been expanded to a corps of fourteen companies composed of between 1,200 and 1,400 men. This included three all-Indian units, two of Stockbridge Mahicans and one of Indians from Connecticut (mainly Mohegan and Pequot). Together, they operated primarily in the Lake George and Lake Champlain regions.

The second rangers unit in the area was a small unit commanded by Noah Johnson, but they were captured during the siege of Fort Henry in August 1757. I am also well aware of the existence of Gorham’s Rangers, but this unit was mainly used in Nova Scotia alongside Danks’ Rangers, fighting the Mi'kmaq Indians as well as Acadian rebels. Both companies in Nova Scotia numbered between ninety and one hundred men.

In OTL, from 1755 to 1758, the British could do little more than fight defensive campaigns around Lake Champlain, Crown Point, Ticonderoga, and the upper Hudson. If you do remove the Rodgers Rangers, you can effectively paralyze the British forces in the area during this period.

It was Rodgers vision of warfare that led to British actions during winter, including long range raids on the French forts and reprisals against natives. I can’t see the British forces being able to undertake such raids without Rodgers Rangers.

They would become less able to effectively wage war in winter due to the lack of Indian allies. Without the capacity to attack Indians in winter, native raids on the border won’t diminish and natives won’t switch side. With less or no British rangers, the French supply lines won’t be as threatened as in OTL. In the reverse, the British lines of supplies and their forts will be vulnerable to Indian and French militiamen raids.

IOTL two major battles were pivotal :

- The siege of Louisbourg (1758)
- The battle of Frontenac (1758)

A lot of events could happen between the death of Robert Rodgers and those battles. One thing is sure, terrestrial British operations and thus the capture of border forts will be more difficult.

Louisbourg siege could be different with a more aggressive defence during the landing or harassment of the attackers during the siege from behind. Fighting for Louisbourg on land is an obligation for the French due to the British control of the sea IOTL, but yeah butterflies could change this situation.

- http://canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/l...-point-in-the-seven-years-war-by-sam-derksen/
- http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_louisbourg.html
 
Last edited:
This event could reverse the application of light forces during this war. The defeat of Rodgers Rangers, his death and the lack of commitment to muster and equip such light forces among the British commanders could lead to progressive disuse of such forces on the British side. On the opposite side, the Frenchmen had numerous native allies and militiamen who were used to the climate and "la petite guerre".

IDK, I expect the British would end up raising light infantry units anyway. It might take a bit longer than IOTL, but if the British are regularly getting their arses kicked by French light troops, raising light troops of their own is such an obvious counter that I don't see how it wouldn't happen.
 
IDK, I expect the British would end up raising light infantry units anyway. It might take a bit longer than IOTL, but if the British are regularly getting their arses kicked by French light troops, raising light troops of their own is such an obvious counter that I don't see how it wouldn't happen.

They will probably still raise light troops, I do agree. Those troops will probably traditional light troops, not Rodgers Rangers. Robert Rodgers dying 1757, means that his "28 rules of Ranging" won’t be written. The particularity of Rodgers Rangers wasn’t the fact that they were light troops, but their training, tactics and their size.

Other irregular rangers troops in British North America were used in a more traditional way. They were smaller, usually refused to fight alongside natives and used as counter-insurrection forces or scouts. They weren’t long range raiders. Rodgers Rangers later instructed British units in those new tactics, including the 80th Regiment of Light-Armed Foot of Thomas Gage and parts of the Royal American regiment.

Henri Bouquet was another prerevolutionary unconventional American warrior, who would rise to prominence for his role in putting down Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, following Rodgers’ feats.


https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1140&context=thesis
https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/assc/article/viewFile/1441/1454
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Royal_Rifle_Corps
http://history.emory.edu/home/documents/endeavors/volume5/gunpowder-age-v-goetz.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26304816?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents
 
Last edited:
You have certainly provided a treasure trove of information for me to view!

Part of me wonders if this might lead to a French veteran writing his equivalent to the "28 rules of ranging." The question remains is if the French adopt tactics more suited to the colonies, Rogers Rangers are stillborn, is this enough to preserve New France?
 
You have certainly provided a treasure trove of information for me to view!

Part of me wonders if this might lead to a French veteran writing his equivalent to the "28 rules of ranging." The question remains is if the French adopt tactics more suited to the colonies, Rogers Rangers are stillborn, is this enough to preserve New France?
Maybe in the short term, but without being able to win in Europe and forcing the British to sign a treaty that allows France to keep her colonies, I think the British are just gonna give it another crack before too long. And New France was always severely underpopulated compared to the British colonies.
 
One thought is that more conventional warfare might lead to more acceptance of native volunteers

Keep in mind mixed tribe and race natives were common due to adoption rules but many had to make a choice to live French (church,army) or native (boatmen and trappers).

Unfortunately to get support of the war leaders of the tribes usually doesn’t mean walking slowly in a big line as targets so would be a tough battle.

A series of posts to raid from and attacking from the west would just help show how large the yet discovered America’s were and might drive even more post war pressure west.
 
You have certainly provided a treasure trove of information for me to view!

Part of me wonders if this might lead to a French veteran writing his equivalent to the "28 rules of ranging." The question remains is if the French adopt tactics more suited to the colonies, Rogers Rangers are stillborn, is this enough to preserve New France?

You can find good candidates to write such a book in the French leadership. Personally, I would choose Charles Michel de Langlade who was a Great Lakes fur trader and war chief who was important to the French in protecting their territory. His mother was Ottawa and his father a French Canadian fur trader.

Maybe in the short term, but without being able to win in Europe and forcing the British to sign a treaty that allows France to keep her colonies, I think the British are just gonna give it another crack before too long. And New France was always severely underpopulated compared to the British colonies.

Creating enough butterflies to save New-France is a nice challenge, let's try to find a way to help France. Sadly, France would probably lose the Caribbean islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, if butterflies don't happen.

In OTL, the final treaties ending the Indian-French war were negociated due to a stalemate in Europe. If you do reproduce this stalemate in North America until 1763, keeping Nouvelle-France, in its entierety minus Acadia, shouldn't be impossible. After all, the British government was also close to bankruptcy. I try not to imagine a British revolution right now.

It means that Hudson Bay Company territories can perhaps become french in the long run and that Acadia could even be reconquered during American Revolution with enough butterflies.

The South is more complicated :

It would also mean not ceding the territories west of Mississippi to Spain in 1762. IOTL, It was decided after the battle of Signal Hill (September 15, 1762) as an easy solution to annoy Great Britain, while blocking the expansion of the coastal British colonies. There is no reason to do it this time, even if Spain will probably get angry. By the way, Spain does probably still trade Florida to Britain in order to regain Cuba ITTL.

You would have more difficulties to keep Nouvelle-France united on the long run. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Ivan Lupo on the fact that Nouvelle-France seems to be demographically doomed against a large United-States or an united North American British empire. I won't speak about the risks of a Spanish invasion, as I am not knowledgable enough on the New Spain yet.

First of all, the American revolution is probably poised to occur as it was partially motivated by British taxes levied to pay for the Indian-French war debts. If I do remember well, it was also London's perceived weaknesses against the French that persuaded the American colonists to rise up. Of course, France will do its best to annoy London and will support the American insurgents.

Even if it would mean defending New-France huge territory (Québec -> New-Orléans), you should remember that Spain was part of the American war of Independance on the rebels side in OTL. Spain may provide a ressourceful help to defend New-France.

Later on, New-France would be vulnerable to United-States or a victorious British Empire on the long run. The British Empire thus needs to lose, as it did OTL, and the United States need to be disunited.

- Less insurgent colonies (Albany Congress)
- Bigger Shays' Rebellion
- Disputes on the constitution
- etc.

Fragmented states in conflict with remaining British colonies could help Nouvelle-France to survive. But yeah, on the long run, demographics will be terrible for Nouvelle-France without a French King intervention. Butterflies happen thanksfully.

... France will at least keep Upper New-France.
 
Last edited:
Top