Plausibility Check: French Invasion of Quebec

I've begun thinking about how I am going to start out my new TL, and I thought that I should ask you guys if this is plausible or not.

What if, during the American Revolutionary War, sometime after 1778 (when France entered the war), Louis XVI is pushed by the French generals and nobles to launch an attack on Quebec? Also what if, the British did not care as much about their French subjects in Quebec, and never passed the Quebec Act that guaranteed the free practice of Catholic faith in Quebec? The Americans, who had already tried to invade Canada before, are unwilling to spare men to Quebec, so a large French army is assembled under one of the best French generals available. Under said general, the French attack their former colony and the local populace see the French as liberators, and since there is no Quebec Act, the people have no reason to support the British. The invasion is largely successful and by the end of the war, most of Quebec is occupied by the French, having defeated the British in a few decisive battles. At the end of the war, the French who single-handedly took Quebec, impose harsher terms against the British, leading to the return of Quebec.

Do you think this is plausible? If not, could you help me come up with a few ideas on how to make such a thing more plausible? Once again, thank you guys.
 
Well, there were several reasons that prevented that IOTL, that you can overcome, but are quite interesting.

1) France reaction to the loss of Canada ranged from "Meh, no big deal" to "Without our pressure in the north, British colonists are going to get loose" (which, obviously, happened)

2) Canada was quite loyalist, and french-speaking Canadians weren't in best terms with North American settlers to begin with : maniorial system vs. republicanism; catholicism vs. protestantism, to say nothing about the old wounds.
Unless Britain is particularly blind to the point not even issuing the Act, anyone with a functioning brain would grand this and more the moment Continental Congress make a move in Canada.

3) Limited means : preventing Royal Navy to have an overhelming presence in Atlantic sea is a thing, managing furthermore to get troops from France to support logistically and strategically Americans was already quite something, but in addition of all this making an invasion of Quebec on your own would be stretching it a bit.

You need France having an actual interest on reconquering Quebec to begin with, having more forces to spare than IOTL, and maybe Congress accepting to change British neighbourhood in the North for a more important French one (not only in Caribbeans)
 
Well, there were several reasons that prevented that IOTL, that you can overcome, but are quite interesting.

1) France reaction to the loss of Canada ranged from "Meh, no big deal" to "Without our pressure in the north, British colonists are going to get loose" (which, obviously, happened)

2) Canada was quite loyalist, and french-speaking Canadians weren't in best terms with North American settlers to begin with : maniorial system vs. republicanism; catholicism vs. protestantism, to say nothing about the old wounds.
Unless Britain is particularly blind to the point not even issuing the Act, anyone with a functioning brain would grand this and more the moment Continental Congress make a move in Canada.

3) Limited means : preventing Royal Navy to have an overhelming presence in Atlantic sea is a thing, managing furthermore to get troops from France to support logistically and strategically Americans was already quite something, but in addition of all this making an invasion of Quebec on your own would be stretching it a bit.

You need France having an actual interest on reconquering Quebec to begin with, having more forces to spare than IOTL, and maybe Congress accepting to change British neighbourhood in the North for a more important French one (not only in Caribbeans)


And if this happens, do you think it would be plausible for the French to gain a decisive victory and force harsher terms on the British at the end of the war?
 
And if this happens, do you think it would be plausible for the French to gain a decisive victory and force harsher terms on the British at the end of the war?

I don't know enough about AIW to say if such campaign was plausible (I don't think so, but it's pure gut-based tought).

What I think would be quite implausible, would be France pushing for harder terms. Too hard terms (as in abandon all of North America) would risk to make the war going longer, at the expanse of the already quite diminished (as in "Well, having a treasury was fun as long it lasted"), and with a radical change of mind in the British opinion (going from "Meh, screw the rebels, and turn to more interesting matters" to "How those fanatized froggies dare ask this! Let's show them, boys!").

All of that without any certainty on the American theater, giving that US had secret negociation with Britain whom France wasn't part of.

Being in war with Britain, with US going all neutral, with an empty treasury and a much more motivated British opinion isn't going to look well for France.

Save a collapse of UK for some reason, I don't see any french politics without severe head trauma risking that.
 
Also, if there's no Quebec Act, there's no proclamation line of 1763, which means one of the major irritants that CAUSED the Revolution is gone. So the ARW will be different at least, and might not happen.

Again, one of the reasons the Colonists stayed loyal earlier was because the French threat meant they needed British backup in case of war. If France tries reimposing control of Quebec, it's entirely possible the 13 colonies patch up their differences with Britain in a hurry, and the war ends on negotiated grounds, with the Colonies becoming what iotl would be called Dominions.
 
Alright. Then what if, in 1759, General Montcalm is able to use better tactics and rally his men to do perform better in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, resulting in a defeat and the retreat of British forces in North America during the SYW? Whether or not the French are able to keep all of Louisiana is irrelevant. I'm really looking for ways the French are able to keep Quebec. Would this work? If not, any ideas? Thanks!
 
Then you'd need Britain to be far less powerful on North America.
For example, if for some reason, it was efficiently challenged by Netherlands, you could have New Holland forming a buffer colony between Canada and British NA.

Of course, it would be enough of a PoD to significantly butterfly several stuff since the XVIIth century.

But by the SYW, France was ready to let its North American holdings in exchange for peace. Even if Montcalm was able to repeal all British troops (which I really doubt given his ressources), France had at this point abandoned already hope that Canada (critically after the fur trade decline) and Louisiana (critically after the financial bull on Mississipi Company broke) would be useful and worth the effort.

Unless Britain loose hard on Europe, I don't think it could work there.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
what if, in 1759, General Montcalm is able to use better tactics and rally his men to do perform better in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, resulting in a defeat and the retreat of British forces in North America during the SYW? Whether or not the French are able to keep all of Louisiana is irrelevant. I'm really looking for ways the French are able to keep Quebec. Would this work? If not, any ideas? Thanks!

If the Seven Years War ends with Quebec still in French hands, then they will keep it. That's not all that hard and a French victory at the Plains of Abraham might do the trick.

Moreover, the British offered to give Quebec back to France in exchange for some Caribbean islands, and the French opted to keep the islands since they were financially more valuable.
 
Top