France victorious in the French and Indian wars

What if France was victorious in the French and Indian wars? Would France demand all or most of British north America? Would it result in a (mostly) Francophone North America? Or reolutions in the Americas starting at a later time? Perhaps it would avert the French revolution entirely?
Discuss.
 
What if France was victorious in the French and Indian wars? Would France demand all or most of British north America?

Very unlikly, as the eastern colonies contained much more english colonists than the Canada french colonists, so annexing it would only cause endless problems. The Hudson Bay company on the other hand would most likely be taken over to eliminate competition. Newfoundland might be seized to secure the sealanes, but not more.

Would it result in a (mostly) Francophone North America?

That depends on the aftermath of the war, as I said Canada was very thinly populated compared to the enlish colonies. Unless the French change that by increasing the immigration, the bigger english population will spread sooner or later again over into the interior and undo the French victory.


Perhaps it would avert the French revolution entirely?

Well as you hopefully know the French and indian Wars were just the North American part of the seven years war. Which was also fought in Europe (basically everyone against Prussia and England) and India (France against England). Both India and Europe were much more important, so to answer this question we need to know how well France did in those areas. If the also won India and control the Indian trade they can get rid of the deficite which will delay the revolution by removing the direct cause. Of course the structural problems will still be there so it might just happen later.
 
Do you mean the American theatre or the European theatre? The Seven Year War was closely contested across the world, and a Franco-Russian-Austrian victory would have enormous effects on India, Africa and the East Indies. Europe would be very different; Prussia defeated and probably reduced greatly in power; Austria would probably regain her threatened hegemony; France would probably reach her 'natural borders' and Louis XIV would be even stronger and an even greater king.
 

Tellus

Banned
Do you mean the American theatre or the European theatre? The Seven Year War was closely contested across the world, and a Franco-Russian-Austrian victory would have enormous effects on India, Africa and the East Indies. Europe would be very different; Prussia defeated and probably reduced greatly in power; Austria would probably regain her threatened hegemony; France would probably reach her 'natural borders'

You mean he would rise from his grave 50 years after his death? So the Seven Years War was actually about stealing the secrets of Lichdom from the dastardly English, it all makes sense now! :p

The rest of your conclusions are spot on, though.

Regarding the North American theater, France would be interested in taking gains in the Caribbean first and foremost. Only Newfoundland and the Hudson bay company are ripe for the taking. There could also be border changes in the contested territories, which included the northern half of modern Maine, and all the buffer territory between the official western borders of 13 colonies and the borders of New France in Louisiana and the Ohio Valley. Finally, the sole large tribe of indians that sided against the French and their more numerous Amerindian allies, the Iroquois confederacy, would probably be shattered once and for all, giving the French side full control of the natives in any future conflict.

Ultimately the severely population imbalance means the British colonies would not accept their defeat easily. It would certainly push back the American revolution, as the colonists would still need British power on their side. Paris would know this, though, and if their victory was really decisive they might want to try to do something about it, such as forcing London to give back part of New England to the Dutch? It certainly seems far removed from their primary war goals at the time, though.
 
Saepe Fidelis said:
Louis XIV would be even stronger and an even greater king.

Hmm, wrong Louis... During the Seven Year War, the King of France was Louis XV, the great grandson of Louis XIV.

That being said, Louis XV would probably become a greater King if he wins the Seven Year Wars.
 
Well as you hopefully know the French and indian Wars were just the North American part of the seven years war. Which was also fought in Europe (basically everyone against Prussia and England) and India (France against England). Both India and Europe were much more important, so to answer this question we need to know how well France did in those areas. If the also won India and control the Indian trade they can get rid of the deficite which will delay the revolution by removing the direct cause. Of course the structural problems will still be there so it might just happen later.
What I meant was, that without a France severely weakened by the defeat in the war, there may be a chance for the French revolution to be averted.
 
Hmm, wrong Louis... During the Seven Year War, the King of France was Louis XV, the great grandson of Louis XIV.

That being said, Louis XV would probably become a greater King if he wins the Seven Year Wars.

Thank you for the correction, the old devil lived so long it's better to just assume that any French king between the 17-18th century was either him or one of his eponymous successors.
 
Ultimately the severely population imbalance means the British colonies would not accept their defeat easily. It would certainly push back the American revolution, as the colonists would still need British power on their side. Paris would know this, though, and if their victory was really decisive they might want to try to do something about it, such as forcing London to give back part of New England to the Dutch? It certainly seems far removed from their primary war goals at the time, though.

That is far off enough to be ludicrous-New England is pretty much all English (-descended) at this point, and the Mid-Atlantic colonies that New Netherland gave birth to now had enough British settlers or British-allied Dutch/Germanophones to make such a move very, very volitile for North America in case it happens.

And in the case they knew London was *forced* to (compared to Paris simply giving Canada the finger in OTL), I can see bad times ahead for Canada as the English colonists will remember and still inevitably keep expanding in area and number.
 
What I meant was, that without a France severely weakened by the defeat in the war, there may be a chance for the French revolution to be averted.

The point is that the French and Indian Wars were just an unimportant sideshow compared to the war in Europe and India. If France just wins in North America due to some luck (e.g. no smallpox outbreak among the indians in the middle of the war and a convenient blizzard destroying an english army) but still lose in the other theaters the effect on France will be negligible. If the French victory in North America is accompanied by similar victories in Europe and India then this can delay or avert the French revolution.
 
Saepe Fidelis said:
Thank you for the correction, the old devil lived so long it's better to just assume that any French king between the 17-18th century was either him or one of his eponymous successors.

I think the mistake is understundable... Louis XIV had the longest reign of all French Kings and died only in 1714. Yet, he was such a powerful King and brought such glory to France that the name Louis became THE name of the dauphin or his successors. Thus their were a hell lot of Louis in the Bourbon family : Louis XIV, his son Louis the Grand Dauphin, his grandson Louis the Petit Dauphin, his Greatgrandson and successors Louis XV, etc...

What I mean is that if you look closely the French royalty from Louis XIV up to the fall of the French Monarchy, all of the Kings and Dauphins of France were named Louis with only one exception : Charles X. Seeing thus how weak of a variety there is, you can easily mistake one Louis for another...
 
First, as said before repeatedly, the outcome of the French and Indian war depends on the other theaters of war. Now assuming France wins in all those theaters, the question is what they could demand and what the effect would be.

As stated before, Newfoundland should be taken. And probably the Hudson-Bay company. All in all, this sould lead to all of OTL western Canadian coastline under French control. Considering the British colonies, I doubt that the French would try to take them over. If they do so, they will fail sooner or later. So the only viable option for the French is weakening the British north American Empire:
1. Reestablishment of the Dutch New Netherlands might be an option - I'm not an expert on demographics though it might be that neither the Dutch nor the colonists would support that.
2. From a current viewpoint, independence might be an option. Give all colonies independence - yet not as a union - and maybe occupy strategic forts in some colonies. Essentially a divide-et-impera approach. Question though is whether any European power would even think about this possibility and second even if they do think about it if they dare to bring up such an example.
 
It depends on how they won, how the British lost, who else lost, and where the French lost if anywhere.

I'm going to assume you just mean the North American theatre. A win for the French, or at least say a successful rerouting of the Plains of Abraham could buy New France another 10-15 years. If Wolfe had failed and been captured, or got his men spotted while they were scaling up the side of Quebec there's a pretty good chance the British would suffer setbacks enough to make a stalemate possible. If Louisbourg gets taken it'll still probably get demolished, but the French might be able to win back Cape Breton Island (or Ile Royale as it were) and rebuild it. Pretty significant stuff demographically.

If the French are more successful in India, or more successful in the Americas, they could hold onto more land there instead of losing it all as IOTL. The death of Clive, which was a distinct possibility given he nearly shot himself in the face, would probably leave the British open to a few setbacks if no one else could fill his shoes. French victories might open India up to being more divided in the future. If the French lose in India as in OTL but win in North America, I could see them giving up pieces of NA to get back small streches of land in India, but that totally depends on the negotiating side for the U.K.

Finally, in Europe a French win changes a lot and you'd need to dissect the war to figure out more about that.



First, as said before repeatedly, the outcome of the French and Indian war depends on the other theaters of war. Now assuming France wins in all those theaters, the question is what they could demand and what the effect would be.

As stated before, Newfoundland should be taken. And probably the Hudson-Bay company. All in all, this sould lead to all of OTL western Canadian coastline under French control. Considering the British colonies, I doubt that the French would try to take them over. If they do so, they will fail sooner or later. So the only viable option for the French is weakening the British north American Empire:
1. Reestablishment of the Dutch New Netherlands might be an option - I'm not an expert on demographics though it might be that neither the Dutch nor the colonists would support that.
2. From a current viewpoint, independence might be an option. Give all colonies independence - yet not as a union - and maybe occupy strategic forts in some colonies. Essentially a divide-et-impera approach. Question though is whether any European power would even think about this possibility and second even if they do think about it if they dare to bring up such an example.

I think if the French won overwhelmingly enough they'd want New Netherlands for themselves. I also doubt they'd be open to independence, but what you suggest is intruiging even if it's close to ASB. Had they done that..heh, it'd be really cool to see a TL on it.
 
I think if the French won overwhelmingly enough they'd want New Netherlands for themselves. I also doubt they'd be open to independence, but what you suggest is intruiging even if it's close to ASB. Had they done that..heh, it'd be really cool to see a TL on it.

Yes, it's rather ASB. As I said, my suggestions seem reasonable and interesting from our point of view knowing how history developed further. It is in fact a lot more along 17th century thinking that France annexes parts of the English colonies, even though the population is overall hostile. Nevertheless, the French taking the former New Netherland would, as stated previously, imply yet another French-and-Indian war, probably with a rebellion in the newly acquired lands. France simply cannot hold hostile oversea settler colonies - but did the French government know that back then?
 

Thande

Donor
It's almost impossible for France to win in North America, because everything was stacked against them in OTL, they did rather startlingly well against the British/Colonial forces there, and they still lost.

But it is possible for the French to win in other theatres (Europe, India) and then force Britain to trade back her North American possessions - as indeed already happened in previous wars.

See also Anaxagoras' timeline God is a Frenchman.
 
I think we should probably forget New York. It's far, far beyond the reach of the French.

I agree that an obvious bit would be Hudson's Bay Company, but am less certain the French would end up with it. They simply couldn't take and hold the place, so they'd have to be given it in the peace deal. That begs the question of why they'd want to go after such a big tract of land they couldn't well defend when positions in the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Africa, India, and possibly even Europe would be on the table.

What they could accomplish during the war would be successes in the borderlands. The Iroquois could have been crushed, the western Appalachians secured, possibly positions taken and held in Nova Scotia / Acadia. The latter - which still had many French settlers in the OTL New Brunswick area - would be the region of greatest long-term significance to change hands (if it did).

It's not that I disbelieve that the HBC lands or Newfoundland would switch, but they wouldn't do so during the war. The British had a bigger navy, so both areas were safe. Wound the British navy and they're still safe, because the French will concentrate their ships to attack English positions almost everywhere before North America. They could change hands at the peace table, but then you beg the question: Why take that when you can take something warmer, richer, and more defensible?

Still and all, significant effects. A generation could see the French presence in Vermont and Acadia increase substantially, outposts like Detroit develop, and a permanent presence be made in OTL Ontario.

Now if you want French conquest of the colonies.... First you need French conquest of Britain.
 
:DFunny, this was the question that lead me to this site (though more Seven Years War in total).

I recommend God is a Frenchman, good TL on the subject, at least IMO.
 
It's almost impossible for France to win in North America, because everything was stacked against them in OTL, they did rather startlingly well against the British/Colonial forces there, and they still lost.

But it is possible for the French to win in other theatres (Europe, India) and then force Britain to trade back her North American possessions - as indeed already happened in previous wars.

See also Anaxagoras' timeline God is a Frenchman.

I don't think they necessarily need to "win", more like the American colonists they just need to hold onto a stalemate in French lands long enough to not lose. There was certainly a possibility for that, but you're totally right. To have Montcalm riding victoriously into Boston harbor... :rolleyes:

It's not that I disbelieve that the HBC lands or Newfoundland would switch, but they wouldn't do so during the war. The British had a bigger navy, so both areas were safe. Wound the British navy and they're still safe, because the French will concentrate their ships to attack English positions almost everywhere before North America. They could change hands at the peace table, but then you beg the question: Why take that when you can take something warmer, richer, and more defensible?

Still and all, significant effects. A generation could see the French presence in Vermont and Acadia increase substantially, outposts like Detroit develop, and a permanent presence be made in OTL Ontario.

I think it more depends how well they do in other theatres. If they win in Europe and India, there's a good chance they'll trade back for the lands or simply demand them. Newfoundland might end up partitioned again (it was hardly settled at the time, so it's more like modern day Svalbard in terms of demographics) as well as retaining their old territory. Acadia might get given back, if we're talking a total and absolute French ass kicking of Britain but otherwise I can see the British exchanging other stuff instead. Halifax is a very useful harbor for them. Ile Royale (Cape Breton) would be remain in French possession however, and Louisbourg would continue to be the obsession of militant English settlers :D.
 
Top