Le Grand Empire Français: A French Empire Timeline

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Dylanperr, Jul 29, 2019.

Loading...
  1. Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    The French and their allies win the Seven Years War and the French Empire becomes the biggest and most influential empire in human history like the British Empire in our timeline. Here are the point of departures to this timeline.

    When the Seven Years War first started the French had a lot of initial victories against the British especially in North America. In this timeline the French pay more attention to their colonies as much as they did the European theatre and keep using their initial tactics that they had before 1759. 1759 was when the Seven Years War turned against the French and in favour of the British and their allies.

    In North America the French prevent the Siege of Louisbourg by the British preventing almost any British attempts to take Quebec from the French because in our timeline the Siege of Louisbourg lead to the conquest of New France.

    In India the French win the Battles of Plassey and/or Wandiwash and gain control of India after the Third Carnatic War which was the Indian theatre of the Seven Years War.

    In Europe the Austrians and the Russians successfully follow up their occupation of Berlin after the Battle of Kunersdorf and then would go to defeat Prussia.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2019
    TheNerd_, Gabingston and runaway4444 like this.
  2. Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    Hi everybody.
     
    Arcvalons and DanMcCollum like this.
  3. Threadmarks: 1757 Battle Of Plassey

    Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    The Battle Of Plassey

    The year is 1757 and a major battle broke out between the British and the French in the Indian subcontinent theatre of the Seven Years War in Bengal and it is a conflict known as the Battle of Plassey and this battle will be a turning point for whoever wins it would control the Bengal region of the Indian subcontinent.

    France becomes victorious and won the Battle of Plassey in the Indian theatre of the Seven Years War due to Nawab of Bengal Siraj ud-Duluah and his French allies having numerically superior forces against the British and the British East India company causing the French in India and the Nawab of Bengal Siraj ud-Duluah and his French allies preventing the British annexation of Bengal to Britain and the British East India company and the French after the Battle of Plassey would go to take back the French Fort Chandannagar which they lost in a previous battle against the British.

    The French if they keep being victorious like they are will end up winning the Third Carnatic War (Indian Subcontinent Theatre Of The Seven Years War) the French will soon conquer all of the Indian subcontinent in the near future from the British and dissolve the declining Indian civilizations prior to European colonization in India such as the Mughal Empire and when the Mughal Empire falls the French Empire in India will take its place and dissolve all of the Mughal Empire and all of the lands that the Mughal Empire laid claim to.
     
  4. Threadmarks: 1758 The French Prevent The Capture Of Louisbourg

    Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    The French Prevent The Capture Of Louisbourg

    The French are being better supplied in the colonial theatres especially the North American theatre of the Seven Years War in this timeline. The French forces commanded under General Chevalier de Drucour along with the Acadian and Mi'kmaq militias in North America successfully prevent the British forces commanded under General Jeffrey Amherst from capturing the French Fortress of Louisbourg in Cape Breton Island.

    Louisbourg is extremely important and possibly the most important thing to the French in North America because the Fortress of Louisbourg was a naval base in North America that controlled the Grand Banks and the Saint Lawrence Valley and after that the French forces along with their French Canadian and Mi'kmaq allies keeping the Fortress of Louisbourg could prevent most if not all British attempts at conquering Canada from the French as long as the French could hold on to the Fortress of Louisbourg and control the Saint Lawrence Valley and the Grand Banks of North America.
     
    blackswordzero and Gabingston like this.
  5. Threadmarks: 1759 The French Reinvade Their Lost Colonies

    Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    The French Reinvade Their Lost Colonies
    The French after they prevent the capture of the Fortress of Louisbourg would then go to reinvade all of the colonies that they lost to the British during the War of the Spanish Succession. These colonies that France would reinvade from Britain would firstly be Acadia to resettle the Acadians in New England that were expelled from Acadia which is now the present day Canadian provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island by New England forces and along with that Acadia can be used as a strategic point along with Newfoundland for the French in North America because Acadia and Newfoundland are near the Saint Lawrence Valley and controlling the Saint Lawrence Valley was very important for the French in North America.

    The French after they reinvade Acadia would then go to reinvade Newfoundland from the British because Newfoundland was very important to French fisherman as well as the French fishing industry in North America and the fishing industry was a highly profitable industry to the French in North America. After the French reinvaded all of the colonies that they lost to Britain during the War of the Spanish Succession are not going to try to invade the 13 colonies for many reasons such as the Thirteen colonies having a much larger population than New France and New France had a very low population that in order to survive as a colony against the British and along with that New France depended on Metropolitan France to supply them with troops, supplies and many other needed stuff.
     
    blackswordzero and Gabingston like this.
  6. Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    Which do you think is more plausible for the French to win the Seven Years War? The French winning more battles in the Seven Years War against the British or the French carrying out their planned invasion of the British Isles in 1759?
     
    Talus I of Dixie likes this.
  7. Bennett Human Time-Waster

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2017
    An invasion on Britain is really the only thing that would really help the French here, but even that isn't on a good note. An invasion of mainland Britain would have to use a lot of soldiers, and would drain the treasury, too. That being said, it would end the war quicker.
    It wouldn't get the French that much, though. They might be able to barter their way into some former possessions (at best Maine), but even then, why would they go for Canada? Canada wouldn't benefit France any, unless if they wanted to dive deep into the fishing industry (which wouldn't get them far). No, an earlier victory for the French would involve bartering for islands in the Caribbean, as well as cities and forts in India and Africa.
     
    Gabingston and Dylanperr like this.
  8. Talus I of Dixie The hymn of Tuva is just perfect

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Location:
    Come to **Brazil**
    Ok, i'm experienced in reading timelines where France wins the 7 Year's War, a mix of victories on the continent and overseas would be ideal, the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg doesn't have to be butterflied, you might as well make the UK lose while making Prussia "win"

    For the latter, an UK suing for peace after the entry of Spain in the war is the ideal. But this is your decision, great timeline!
     
    Gabingston and Dylanperr like this.
  9. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    It would seem here that France is appearing to be playing the winning hand militarily. An earlier, more successful reinforcement of North America, combined with successful tactics, leaves a stalemate in NA, while France has scored victories in India. Their main shortcoming is that they are broke.
    In Britain, the Pitt/Newcastle has failed in its strategy of breaking France in the colonial arena. I would have their gov't fall, being replaced by a peace party. This can be in conjunction with Spain entering the war in '60 putting on pressure. '59 would be ideal, but Carlos III has just assumed the throne, and has to get everything in order - maybe you can hasten the death of Ferdinand VI, so that Spain can enter the war at a time when they can tilt the scales. With Britain tied up in North America, they wouldn't be able to assist Portugal as they did OTL or take Havana (OTL, Spain entered the war after New France had fallen, so Britain had troops available).
    IMO, France would be happy to get out of this war with New France intact and India taken. I'd have to reread the history books, but I don't think they've lost anything in the Caribbean yet. France doesn't have the finances to stretch this war out long enough to achieve the complete victory that Britain did. The Annus Mirabilis seemed miraculous, but in hindsight it was pretty obvious an outcome. Reversing all of them would take miracles. France should go for a peace with reasonable gains. The peace party now in power in Britain will go for that. France getting too greedy will scuttle any deal, and the war will drag on, giving Britain ample opportunity to gain the upper hand.

    Don't forget the naval scene. A huge part of France's problems stem from their being completely dominated. It's going to be a real year of miracles if France prevails with this late a date. Perhaps a POD could be more attention paid to the fleet after the War of Austrtalian Succession, so that France can achieve reinforcement to their colonies. IMO, the inability to reinforce New France was a key part of losing in that theater.

    Post war, both Britain and France are going to prep for another war.
     
    Gabingston and Dylanperr like this.
  10. Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    Thank you. I've also heard about a 1688 Dutch invasion of Britain that was sucessful even if they went unopposed but even if the Dutch went opposed I think the Dutch still would of won because they had an invasion force of 600 ships which is around 4 times the size of the Spanish Armada.
     
    Gabingston and Talus I of Dixie like this.
  11. Threadmarks: 1759 Battle Of Kunersdorf

    Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    Battle Of Kunersdorf

    After the French are having enormous victories in the colonial theatres of India and North America in the Seven Years War the French and their allies in the European theatre of the Seven Years War the Austrians and the Russians will go and successfully follow up their victory in the Battle of Kunersdorf against the Prussians and when the Austrians and the Russians will go to occupy the Prussian capital city of Berlin the Austrians and Russians will eventually defeat Prussia and win the Seven Years War in the European theatre against Prussia.

    After the defeat of Prussia by the Austrians and the Russians and the occupation of the Prussian capital city of Berlin and the defeat of Prussia. The allies of the Austrians and the Russians such as the Swedes will find this as a perfect opportunity to go reinvade Pomerania from the Prussians which the Swedes lost to the Prussians in the Great Northern War. But the Swedes aren’t the only one that will go and find this as a perfect opportunity to go and conquer land the French will also go to invade the Rhineland states such as the Electorate of Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, and Schaumburg-Lippe and turn them into client states of France.
     
    blackswordzero and Gabingston like this.
  12. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    There was a tiny problem with the Russians actively pursuing victory at Kunersdorf called “the Austrians”: they could not resolve the supply issues (as a result, Russian army had to rely upon the supply bases in Poland) and they were much more interested in Bohemia/Silesia than in occupying Berlin and energetically advancing into Brandenburg. Ideology of the early XIX (crush enemy’s army and then demand whatever you want including the territories you did not physically conquered) was not there, yet, and exterminating opponent’s forces was secondary to the direct occupation of a territory. In other words, hunting Old Fritz down and occupying his capital were not considered key to the victory. Look at even the later time, Italian Campaign of 1799. Austrian-Russian army led by Suvorov (ultra-aggressive general) defeated all French armies in Italy after which Austrians lost any interest to extending the effort into the French territory and got busy with besieging and taking the French-held fortresses to solidify their hold on the region (Russians were pushed into Switzerland and had been lucky to get out of it with the resulting worsened relations and eventual breakdown of an alliance). Needless to say that this proved to be a waste of effort because everything was lost after Napoleon’s second Italian Campaign.

    Of course, to be fair, Russians suffered serious losses at Kunersdorf and also had been reluctant to stick their neck too far unless Austrians (the main interested party) start acting aggressively. Their supply situation was bad and their army commander not exactly a Napoleonic-style aggressive general (none to be found in the Russian army of that time). The victory was good and great and justified a relative inaction (with the Austrians being a convenient scapegoat). Old Fritz still remained a great and aggressive general and, objectively, defeat at Kunersdorf was due to his mistakes as much as due to the stubbornness of the Russian troops and efficiency of their artillery. Looking for a new confrontation would be risky and Saltykov was not going to destroy his reputation by losing a battle.
     
  13. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    As with the British Annus Mirabalis, this 'miracle' is anything but, as you point out. Certainly, the Russians/Austrians could have been more aggressive, but that would be out of character and be more miraculous than OTL. But the joy of Alt History is that the improbable become possible (real history is often the same!)
     
    Dylanperr and alexmilman like this.
  14. alexmilman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Yes, of course, but there is always a blurred line between AH and ASB. As you said, transplanting military (and diplomatic) ideology of the XIX century would be something of a miracle and backing it up with the supporting “material base” of the XIX even more so. :)

    To be fair, doing just that seems to be popular among the AH writers using “transferred personality” from XX - XXI century. Usually, the hero is a ruler and everything happens according to his orders without major problems. Much earlier industrialization by the click of his fingers, the military modernizing themselves, no problem, massive production of the explosive shells and rifles couple centuries ahead of schedule, not a big deal, etc. Sometimes it is entertaining (providing that author has a literary talent) but quite often it is plain boring: just a list of the earlier inventions and scientific discoveries and the victorious wars won against not progressive enough opponents.
     
  15. Threadmarks: 1760 The End Of The Seven Years War

    Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    The End Of The Seven Years War

    Britain after their ally Prussia was defeated by the Austrians and Russians in the European theatre of the Seven Years War and with the French defeating the British in the colonial theatres such as India, North America and West Africa as well as the French defeating the British in the European theatre of the Seven Years War as well the British after they could no longer win the Seven Years War against the French alone the British will start to negotiate for peace with the French and their allies of Austria, Russia, and Sweden.

    France will acquire the colonies of Acadia, Newfoundland, and Hudson Bay in North America, Bengal and Carnatic regions in the Indian Subcontinent, and the Electorate of Hanover with a few other German Rhineland states such as Brunswick-Wolffenbuttel, Schaumburg-Lippe, and Hesse-Kassel as French client states in Europe. Austria will get Silesia, Russia will get East Prussia, the Swedes will gain Pomerania.

    Spain doesn't join the Seven Years War in this alternate timeline because the war ended before May 1 1762 and in our timeline Spain would declare war against Britain if it didn't end the war before May 1 1762. Another reason why Spain didn't join the Seven Years War is that the French are having enormous victories against the British in the Seven Years War in this alternate timeline. One of the biggest reasons the Spanish in our timeline fought in the Seven Years War was to help the French recover their colonies in America.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2019
  16. xmoose Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2016
    Russian would probably get Courland instead of Prussia (that would go to former duke of Courland).
    French expansion deep into Germany, even if through vassal/client states... mhm, I don´t think it is likely. Hannower? Damn, that would be french hegemony in Napoleon style, Austrians would be pissed and minor german princes probably too, even Petersburg could be nervous...
    On the different note: how probable is here that "bavarian exchange" (swith of Hasburg Netherlands or part of it for Wittelsbach bavaria) happen here? France would could be more happy with friendly Wittelsbachs as neighbors, Germany gets buffer against France and Habsburgs strenghten their position in HRE (would they want however? with Prussia done, they are already strong enough in Germany?) Main OTL obstacle here, Prussia, is irrelevant (as Britain, surely not happy about France-friendly rulers in Flanders and Brabant)
     
    Dylanperr likes this.
  17. Threadmarks: 1761-1776 Population Boom In New France

    Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    Population Boom In New France

    The Seven Years War had just ended and France and their allies had became victorious at the end of the Seven Years War and the French win in the colonial theatres of the Seven Years War and they have their massive colony of New France in North America. The French Chief Minister Etienne Francois, duc de Choiseul predicted an American Revolt in our timeline but in this alternate timeline he would still predict an American revolt because the British were not entirely defeated from North America because of their high populations in the Thirteen Colonies. New France isn't self sufficient like the British Thirteen Colonies Were and so the French station some of their military in North America in order to put down a probable American revolt that could happen from the British Thirteen Colonies.

    There is one problem that could be the biggest problem with New France and that problem is it's very low population and New France had only 70,000 in their North American colony of New France and the Brits in North America had over 2,000,000 going on to 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 in their Thirteen colonies in North America so the French need more settlers in order to have a foothold in North America and the French peasants having bad harvests in the times of the 1760s and 1770s and more specifically the years of 1769, 1770, 1775, and 1776 in France along with famine in some instances as well. France would see the importance of having settlers in New France and the French government would be giving peasants that were facing bad harvests in France land grants in North America in order to populate New France.

    The French peasants that would settle in New France would mostly settle in Pays Des Illinois and the Ohio River Valley areas of New France because the French would want to better secure their claim to those areas and those areas and they were also really good for farming as well. The French peasants after they boarded ships and sailed passed the Atlantic Ocean and the Saint Lawrence River into the Great Lakes would arrive in the Pays Des Illinois and Pays d'en Haut area of New France the French peasants after settling there thought the area was very empty so they decided to build farms and establish themselves in New France along with their families.
     
  18. Dylanperr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2018
    Location:
    United States
    I am going to probably edit 1761-1776 Population Boom In New France tomorrow because I have to sleep.
     
    Gabingston likes this.
  19. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    I fully agree that France would recognize the need to populate New France, and would move to do so. I agree that the British colonies are at risk of revolt - they are at the point where complete self governance is viable and desirable, coupled with a sense of injustice from mother Britain paired with a sense of being held back by Britain. I go against the standard view that the colonies would stay in the nest for protection. The population disparity makes that a joke. I think it is the opposite: the colonies are tired of being held back from eliminating any threat from the hated papists in the north. Britain is not protecting them. Britain is making the situation worse.

    On the other hand, the French know full well that safety lies in remaining with mother France.

    So my question is: what is the threat the French envision from a British colony (I hate the arrogant usurp of the term American to denote USA- the French and Spanish have just as much claim to it) revolt? The New French aren't going to join the revolt, and the British colonists aren't going to invade a foreign country during a revolution. France probably doesn't give as much aid to the colonists, but they won't assist in putting it down either.

    One of New France's problems was that far too great a percentage of the budget was spent on military as opposed to infrastructure (roads, ports, canals). If you want to boost NF, keep the military budget the same, and increase spending on infrastructure - I don't think France has the finances to do both (although, if you want to maintain France's OTL financial woes, have them spend OTL American Revolution dollars on NF. It's not really a realistic scenario, but who would have thought they would go broke for no gain OTL?)
     
  20. unprincipled peter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    this isn't a revolt. It's a declaration of war and invasion - the French and Indian War (aka seven years war) part two. the first one didn't work. what's different about the second? I don't believe the colonies could unilaterally start such a war, so this would be Britain starting a war and using the colonists to a greater extent than they did the last time. This really just redoing the last war, except this is starting as more than just a colonial squabble escalating to war, and it's not going to be contained to North America. Britain didn't want to make the last war global, and having lost then, isn't going to want to take this one global. Such naked aggression is sure to trigger assistance treaties, bringing Austria/Spain into the fray.

    The colonists still have plenty of room, even confined to east of the Appalachians, and aren't really feeling the pinch yet. They're working on the militia system and as such aren't really eager to travel too far from home. And they aren't trained. They'll be going up against battle hardened vets. For your entire scenario from Day One to work, I presume that the French has a much stronger navy , which is going to hamper Britain in that they can't concentrate overseas and leave the home islands exposed. Plus this eliminates British ability to stop France from reinforcing New France.
     
    Gabingston and Dylanperr like this.
Loading...