France Invades England, Now What?
- Thread starter da Racontor
- Start date
"Une colonie française qui a mal tourné"This thread is basically english people who are saltly because they can't accept that they are a former french colony
wow this derailed quickly
If the French do it in the Nine Years War, then the Stuarts are back on the throne (and the consequences of that are pretty far reaching pretty quickly)
they manage it in the Seven Years War, then Ireland becomes a French ally, the French probably take everything British in the Caribbean and they keep Canada and the Ohio Territory (for a while)
they manage it during the American Revolution (probably their best chance) then as above plus the probably take the British fleet that survives as compensation and certainly would kick the British out of India. Plus the Americans stop being British. The French might even take Quebec back
During the Revolutionary period of the wars with France then we might see a British Republic imposed (assuming they win of course), much like the Batavian Republic was imposed on the Dutch.
Napoleon probably puts one of his brothers on the throne and takes every colony he can from the British.
If the French do it in the Nine Years War, then the Stuarts are back on the throne (and the consequences of that are pretty far reaching pretty quickly)
they manage it in the Seven Years War, then Ireland becomes a French ally, the French probably take everything British in the Caribbean and they keep Canada and the Ohio Territory (for a while)
they manage it during the American Revolution (probably their best chance) then as above plus the probably take the British fleet that survives as compensation and certainly would kick the British out of India. Plus the Americans stop being British. The French might even take Quebec back
During the Revolutionary period of the wars with France then we might see a British Republic imposed (assuming they win of course), much like the Batavian Republic was imposed on the Dutch.
Napoleon probably puts one of his brothers on the throne and takes every colony he can from the British.
To invade during the Nine Years War, the French NEED to use the window given by Béveziers when the RN was licking its wounds for two months, which means that Louis XIV and Seignelay (Navy Secretary) NEED to think about a invasion fleet and to place troops in Normandy (Cherbourg mainly) BEFORE Béveziers (OTL, the victory somewhat surprised them and they didn't know what to do with it, hence hesitation, hence losing the formidable opportunity to have the almost total control of the sea for a short moment).
Impossible during the Seven Years War: the French Navy is in a bad state during the 1740's-1750's against a RN which is becoming stronger and stronger and already has its powerful "Western Squadron" protecting the Sea of Ireland and blockading Brest. For an invasion during the 7YW, you need a POD during the 1720's, when the Monarchy would decide NOT to let its fleet getting old, obsolete and rotten. In fact, the defeat of the 7YW led to the decision to care again about the Navy, hence new great ships being built (like the introduction en masse of the 74 guns, a true wonder that one) and the decision to have somewhat competent admirals to lead the fleet. Without the slap in the face of the 7YW, the French Navy would not have been the surprisingly though opponent the RN had to face during the the ARW.
During the ARW: impossible. The Navy has become good but the French strategy for the War was a naval one. The majority of the ressources were devoted to the Navy (for the first time in French military history), not the Army and the Monarchy wasn't in position to finance its Navy/land forces in America AND to finance a big army which could have led to an invasion of Britain.
During 1790's-1810's: an invasion of Britain is barely more plausible than Sealion. You could have troops on the ground (a succesfull landing in Ireland is always possible) but the French Navy is too weakened to control the sea and supply the troops. It didn't work well for the French in Egypt, it would not work well for the French in Britain.
So the best shot the French had to really really invade Britain was in 1689: they had the money, the army and the navy to do it. After that, you need really strong PODs.
a succesfull invasion in 1689: Jacques II gets his throne back, signs an alliance with France, gives some colonies (a few islands), gets quite unpopular. Come the War in 1702. Britain is temporarily an ally or at least neutral. France can devote its ressources against continental powers and win after two to three years: Say hello to natural borders for France (meaning the Rhine). Britain gets rid of its king, took another king. Jacques goes to Ireland which become a catholic kingdom with strong ties with France to assure its defense. Britain will become independant and strong again on the long run, but not really wanked like OTL: in the 1720's, they would have the 13 Colonies plus strongholds in India.
France has become the economical, agricultural, demographic absolute juggernaut Europe with at least 30 000 000 people. Come the XIXth century, France becomes an industrial first rate power, almost becoming the equivalent of Germany OTL before 1914. Then the French, with a dense population and the industry, could really think about populate their colonies and build a huge navy. Ties with Ireland could be interesting, especially when it would come to populate Canada: the poeple there would speak French with a variety of "funny accents" (meaning more accents than OTL) and a celtic culture could be significant. The US would probably become the Canada from OTL: a loyal dominion fighting against the "horror a catholic population in the New World".
That's just a few thoughts, btw.
What if during the ARW the french had not committed forces to NA and instead had gone for a European strategy and won? Perhaps they prepare an invasion force and then win a crushing victory at Ushant. If they capture London is there anything to stop the French from taking all the British possessions outside of Europe, an 18th century version of Brest-Litovsk or Versailles? https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/members/jeandebueil.95875/
I wasn't aware Vercingetorix did referred to himself as well as his people as French just as William did.
Scene 53 of Bayeux Tapestry said:
More seriously; I think it goes down to what means French in Middle-Ages. While William was certainly not a Frenchman as a XXth century citizen of the republic will, calling him and hisn nobility as French if perfectly acceptable in the context and definition of the XIth century.
It's true that Normans as an endonym is liberally present in several accounts, it's more an account of their politicall alliegence (in a context where French could as well mean men of he king of France) : there's no real proof that Norman nobility didn't saw itself as French in the same sense that Provencal nobility did in the same time : as in belonging to a same political-cultural group, while being still distinct from French understood as "men of the King of France" while identifying directly as men of their immediate lord (Normans, Proencals, Cambresis, etc.). The dichotomy is relatively common.
As others have said, it really depends on the time frame you're talking about. 1689 has been covered, so I'll talk about 1779 (which is probably the next best chance). It would require much better Franco-Spanish cooperation and quite a bit of luck, but it's not impossible.
The main French objective would be to enforce their desired peace treaty on the British; there was no interest in annexation of any part of the British Isles proper. With the Royal Navy defeated and a Franco-Spanish army ashore in Britain (even if insufficient to actually conquer it), the British are probably panicked enough to agree to a fairly maximal treaty:
The next biggest winner is the Netherlands, who haven't yet entered the war and thus don't get to experience the utter disaster that was the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (which saw them lose one of their major outposts in India to the British, and exposed political weaknesses that would contribute to a revolution within the decade).
The Spanish get Gibraltar and Jamaica over OTL (and stricter limits on British logging in Central America), but may not get Minorca; they already did pretty well out of the war, anyway, so it isn't too much of an improvement, especially since Carlos III is still about to die and be succeeded by several generations of incompetent monarchs.
The marginal French gains and slightly lower expenditures aren't enough to forestall the French fiscal crisis, so we likely still get a French Revolution and all that entails.
The main French objective would be to enforce their desired peace treaty on the British; there was no interest in annexation of any part of the British Isles proper. With the Royal Navy defeated and a Franco-Spanish army ashore in Britain (even if insufficient to actually conquer it), the British are probably panicked enough to agree to a fairly maximal treaty:
- The US gets its independence, and probably also gets all of Canada (the French had no interest in it, and the Treaty of Alliance with the US specifically gave the Americans dibs on Canada and Bermuda in exchange for letting France have anything else it wanted).
- The Spanish get Gibraltar, Jamaica, Florida, and possibly Minorca (which OTL was captured in 1781, but they might be able to insist on it here if the British are sufficiently spooked), and also kick the British out of what would become Belize
- France is actually the trickiest one here; the other two powers had fairly clear objectives from the outset, whereas the French objectives were always fairly nebulous. OTL they got very little for their victory in the ARW (principally the return of Tobago and some territories in Africa that had also been lost in 1763). They might snag a few other islands (perhaps Dominica, which had also been French until 1763) and win some additional rights to fortify their trading posts in India, but that's about it.
The next biggest winner is the Netherlands, who haven't yet entered the war and thus don't get to experience the utter disaster that was the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (which saw them lose one of their major outposts in India to the British, and exposed political weaknesses that would contribute to a revolution within the decade).
The Spanish get Gibraltar and Jamaica over OTL (and stricter limits on British logging in Central America), but may not get Minorca; they already did pretty well out of the war, anyway, so it isn't too much of an improvement, especially since Carlos III is still about to die and be succeeded by several generations of incompetent monarchs.
The marginal French gains and slightly lower expenditures aren't enough to forestall the French fiscal crisis, so we likely still get a French Revolution and all that entails.
Last edited:
The Nine Years War was one of the better opportunities I definitely agree
This book (very readable too) gives the Franco-Spanish a reasonable chance twice before they gave up and committed their resources elsewhere in the American Revolution
https://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Sea-Power-American-Revolution/dp/0393239926
I agree, post French Revolution (and the destruction of the elite corps of gunners as well as the loss of way too many officers) the French Navy had almost no chance at all.
I suspect in 1779 the French are going to want the British out of India.. Suffren and Hughes had an interesting naval campaign in the Indian Ocean for much of the war after French entry. Whether India is going to pay off for France is something I have my doubts about, but the French might think so.
Hey, almost identical to what happens in my "New Albion" TL. I feel better that (at least that portion of it) is not totally ASB
It seems hard to believe that the Spanish would get all that but not Minorca. I think they would even trade it for Jamaica if it came to that.
Among others.
Here is a translation, by me, of the chronicle of ouche abbey, describing the formation of the 'norman' army, after Guillaume the Bastard sent a call to arms, promising loot in England.
'They came in numbers, on all roads, from far and near, from North and South. They came from Maine and Anjou, from Poitou and From britanny, from France (ndt at the time, this designed what we currently call isle de France, i.e. The greater area around Paris) and from Flanders ( NDT at the time, this included a lot of what is currently the north of France), from Aquitaine and from burgundy, from the Alpes and from the Rhine area'
By 1066, the Normans were Norsemen in the same way that lots of Americans claim to be "Irish" on Saint Patrick's Day. ("One of my great-great-great grandfathers was from Dublin...")
The Normans in the 11th Century would have identified primarily as Norman, not French.
And Burgundians would have identified themselves as.....Burgundians.To my knowledge,the only people who really acknowledged themselves as French were the people under the King's direct governance.
Normans were Normans it doesn't count. The French did invade England during the reign of the infamous King John, he died before they finished their point and they stopped backing the guy they were backing.