French Victory In The Seven Years War: England and border changes

Two questions.
What would happen to most countries in Europe if France and its allies won the Seven Years War? What would happen to Prussia? Which territories would France gain, in Europe and North America?

What would happen to the United Kingdom after their supposed defeat? Would they start taxing the thirteen colonies worse, increasing the likelihood of an independence war, or would these stay loyal in the fear of a french invasion? What kind of unrest could Britain suffer at home? Could they suffer a republican revolution like France?
 
Some of the changes that are likely to be seen :
Acadia returned to France, Ohio county to France.
Austria gets Silesia back.
France obtains Austrian Netherlands.
Some of British India is handed to France or returned for concessions.
There is also the possibility of Minorca and/or Gibraltar going to Spain.
 
You have to consider that the war against Prussia is one thing, and the war against Britain is almost another entirely.
For Prussia: Austria gets Silesia, Russia gets East Prussia (traded with Poland for Courland), Saxony gets the rest of Lusatia and Magdeburg, dunno about the Rhenish territories.
For Britain: I really don't see a Lion-de-mer during the 7YW, French gains will be based in how much Britain'll sacrifice for Hanover.
For the Netherlands: France or a Bourbon isn't getting all of it, but she can take a part of it as a compensation (especially if Britain founds the conquests worthier than Hanover), a slice of Flanders and Hanaiut or Luxembourg.
For the Thirteen Colonies: It'll depend in how the status quo of New France goes, if the OTL solution happens the Revolution may happens in schedule, if the French are still around, no New Frontier to enrage the settlers and other stuff, the "evul frog" will be a nice deterrent to appease the Americans.
British Revolution: ...I don't think so. Britain was no shinny democracy with rainbows, but it was better than France.
 
For the Thirteen Colonies: It'll depend in how the status quo of New France goes, if the OTL solution happens the Revolution may happens in schedule, if the French are still around, no New Frontier to enrage the settlers and other stuff, the "evul frog" will be a nice deterrent to appease the Americans.

Or might the Americans find themselves disgusted by a Britain that is unable to protect them and their interests, and so come at separatist sentiments differently?
 

ben0628

Banned
It would depend on how much France and her allies won by and what year they win in.

- Important things we need to know in Europe is in this scenario before we can come to a conclusion is a) does GB still occupy Hannover, b) Is Prussia still alive or do they get annihilated, c) has Spain joined the war yet, and d) Is George II or George III on the English throne and who is the current prime minister as at that time different politicians in England want different kinds of peace.

- In America, how well are the French winning? They are probably outnumbered so they can't really invade the British colonies, only raid and capture settlements on the frontier. Also how are they doing in the Caribbean (this area is an economic priority to France who'd be willing to trade all of Canada away if they lost their Caribbean colonies).

How well are the doing on the seas against the Royal Navy and how well are they doing in India.

It all depends how much they are winning by, where they are winning, what year it is and who is in charge before we can discuss how France wins and what they would get since their are so many things at play in this war (it was practically a world war, only difference is its less modern and diplomacy in this time was less unconditional surrender and more back room deals).
 

ben0628

Banned
Honestly I think the Anglo-American success overseas is overdetermined, no?

The French Navy did pretty well in the first years of the war and as long as they maintain their vast network of Native American and Indian alliances, they can at least maintain a stalemate in the colonies. Main reason why the French lost in America is because general Montcalm told his native American allies to either follow European rules of warfare or go the hell home (they chose the latter) and then Wolfe got borderline asb lucky at Quebec
 
But the English goods were cheaper and more common, so the British had more to give. New France was cut off at sea, and Cape Breton fell as well, and that wasn't ASB. I'm also not sure how you can call Wolfe's victory "ASB lucky" TBH.
 

ben0628

Banned
But the English goods were cheaper and more common, so the British had more to give. New France was cut off at sea, and Cape Breton fell as well, and that wasn't ASB. I'm also not sure how you can call Wolfe's victory "ASB lucky" TBH.
Also, how many naval battles were there before Quiberion?

First off the price on English or French goods had little effect on the outcome of the Native American Alliances. The French had three major alliances with the Native Americans. The first was the Wabenaki Confederacy. These tribes lived in Northern New England as well as all of Canada south of the St. Lawrence River. The Natives were just as close to the French trading posts as they were to the British settlements so the price difference here wasn't as big of a deal due to distance as it was near the Great Lakes. More importantly however, the Wabenaki Confederacy had extremely bad relations with the ever expanding New Englanders, so they'll remain loyal to the French regardless of British trade goods. The second group of Native Americans allied to the French were the ones living either north of the St. Lawrence and along the Great Lakes. These Native Americans were the most loyal to the French because of an alliance against the Dutch and Iroquois going back since the 1600s. Not only that, but a large portion of them were converted to Catholicism and the British didn't trade in this area. Finally there are the Ohio Indians. They are the most likely to betray the French but won't as long as the English settlers keep encroaching the frontier. The main reason why the Native Americans abandoned the French is because General Montcalm treated them with disdain and ordered them to follow the European rules of warfare (no scalping, plundering, or hostage taking).

As for naval battles, the French Navies scored early victories in the Caribbean and Mediterranean. And although the British dominated the Atlantic, they couldn't effectively blockade New France until after the battle of Quiberion bay and capture of Louisburg.

According to Fred Anderson, author of the book Crucible of War, Wolfe's plan to take Quebec was assinine, I'll thought, and made out of desperation and only succeeded due to luck and the Stupidity of Montcalm trying to battle well trained British troops on the plains of Abraham with Canadian militia instead of staying behind Quebec's fortifications until the St. Lawrence froze over.

Long story short British victory in the colonies and seas wasn't garuanteed until 1759, and it was only garuanteed because of victories in 1758 that easily could have been French victories with a couple pods.
 
Last edited:
First off the price on English or French goods had little effect on the outcome of the Native American Alliances. The French had three major alliances with the Native Americans. The first was the Wabenaki Confederacy. These tribes lived in Northern New England as well as all of Canada south of the St. Lawrence River. The Natives were just as close to the French trading posts as they were to the British settlements so the price difference here wasn't as big of a deal due to distance as it was near the Great Lakes. More importantly however, the Wabenaki Confederacy had extremely bad relations with the ever expanding New Englanders, so they'll remain loyal to the French regardless of British trade goods. The second group of Native Americans allied to the French were the ones living either north of the St. Lawrence and along the Great Lakes. These Native Americans were the most loyal to the French because of an alliance against the Dutch and Iroquois going back since the 1600s. Not only that, but a large portion of them were converted to Catholicism and the British didn't trade in this area. Finally there are the Ohio Indians. They are the most likely to betray the French but won't as long as the English settlers keep encroaching the frontier.

The French certainly perceived the Ohio Indians as abandoning them in the 1750s and in the 7 Years War. This gets discussed heavily in Middle Ground which notes that by the 1750s the Natives were turning to Britain for economic and security reasons.

According to Fred Anderson, author of the book Crucible of War, Wolfe's plan to take Quebec was assinine, I'll thought, and made out of desperation and only succeeded due to luck and the Stupidity of Montcalm trying to battle well trained British troops on the plains of Abraham with Canadian militia instead of staying behind Quebec's fortifications until the St. Lawrence froze over.

Anderson is part of a school that's been criticizing Wolfe almost since he died for having the nerve of winning, but his plan was sound. Montcalm had to engage Wolfe because Wolfe cut the supply lines and communication route to Montreal. Trying to drive the British out of that position wasn't a terrible idea.

Anderson claims that Montcalm should have waited for Bouganville to return, but he had no idea when that would happen. And when a British army was caught in upstate New York a few years later, the promised relief column didn't rescue them...
 
Top