What if France takes Quebec in 1759

What if France takes Quebec in 1759

Its the morning of 13 September 1759. On the Plains of Abraham, just outside the walls of Quebec City, Britain is losing its great gamble for world power. We know the conflict today as the Five Years War, but if that single engagement had gone differently, it might have lasted longer - perhaps even seven.

What happened that morning, though, was burned into the mind of every British schoolboy for generations. The British and French forces had barely engaged each other when a shot rang out and General James Wolfe fell, killed outright by a bullet to the head. British morale was shattered; in just 15 minutes, the battle was lost.

Britain's defeat at Quebec was an event of world-historic proportions. With the French ascendant, the Marquis de Montcalm swept south towards the British colonies. And by the time Britain was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris, the map of North America had changed beyond recognition. Not only did the Bourbon banner fly over New England and New York, but Britain yielded its claim over all territory west of the Appalachians. In Philadelphia as in London, the streets seethed with anger and resentment; in Paris, the skies glittered with celebratory fireworks.

In the short term, at least, Britain's defeat may have been a blessing in disguise. Zhou Enlai famously remarked that it was "too soon to tell" the significance of the revolution of 1769, which spread the uniquely British ideals of liberty, brotherhood and friendship around the world. But few mourned the execution of the unpopular George III, and you have only to look at a banknote to be reminded of the importance of Charles James Fox, our first democratically elected protector. Max Weber argued that Britain's transition to republicanism was inevitable because of its Protestant intellectual heritage. But we often forget that things could have been so different.

Meanwhile the French struggled to cope with the implications of victory. Attempts to impose Catholicism on their new possessions provoked the abortive American Revolution of 1776. And persistent financial problems led to the rise of Lafayette as Europe's first military dictator.
 
France didn't take Québec; it was already French. And a victory there doesn't mean France would suddenly conquer the British colonies (which had 20 times the population) any more than the French victory in 1690 did.

A French victory means that the defeat in North America is only partial: Britain conquers the Ohio Valley but not Canada.
 
What if France takes Quebec in 1759

Its the morning of 13 September 1759. On the Plains of Abraham, just outside the walls of Quebec City, Britain is losing its great gamble for world power. We know the conflict today as the Five Years War, but if that single engagement had gone differently, it might have lasted longer - perhaps even seven.

What happened that morning, though, was burned into the mind of every British schoolboy for generations. The British and French forces had barely engaged each other when a shot rang out and General James Wolfe fell, killed outright by a bullet to the head. British morale was shattered; in just 15 minutes, the battle was lost.

Britain's defeat at Quebec was an event of world-historic proportions. With the French ascendant, the Marquis de Montcalm swept south towards the British colonies. And by the time Britain was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris, the map of North America had changed beyond recognition. Not only did the Bourbon banner fly over New England and New York, but Britain yielded its claim over all territory west of the Appalachians. In Philadelphia as in London, the streets seethed with anger and resentment; in Paris, the skies glittered with celebratory fireworks.

In the short term, at least, Britain's defeat may have been a blessing in disguise. Zhou Enlai famously remarked that it was "too soon to tell" the significance of the revolution of 1769, which spread the uniquely British ideals of liberty, brotherhood and friendship around the world. But few mourned the execution of the unpopular George III, and you have only to look at a banknote to be reminded of the importance of Charles James Fox, our first democratically elected protector. Max Weber argued that Britain's transition to republicanism was inevitable because of its Protestant intellectual heritage. But we often forget that things could have been so different.

Meanwhile the French struggled to cope with the implications of victory. Attempts to impose Catholicism on their new possessions provoked the abortive American Revolution of 1776. And persistent financial problems led to the rise of Lafayette as Europe's first military dictator.
The French already controlled Quebec, they were defending it. Also invading the 13 colonies is a non-starter for many reasons, if Montcalm is going anywhere it's to the Ohio Valley to try to regain initiative there, or to Acadia as to ensure Louisbourg's return.
 
France didn't take Québec; it was already French. And a victory there doesn't mean France would suddenly conquer the British colonies (which had 20 times the population) any more than the French victory in 1690 did.

A French victory means that the defeat in North America is only partial: Britain conquers the Ohio Valley but not Canada.
I do believe they launched a counteroffensive at Quebec after losing the city, which very well could have succeeded. They were able to win at Sainte Foy and put the city under siege, but the lack of naval support made the effort futile once the British retreated behind the walls. Had they been able to win at Quebec, they probably still lose Montreal in 1760, but with another relief effort that somehow makes it through, perhaps they could have held on for a little while longer.
 
I do believe they launched a counteroffensive at Quebec after losing the city, which very well could have succeeded. They were able to win at Sainte Foy and put the city under siege, but the lack of naval support made the effort futile once the British retreated behind the walls. Had they been able to win at Quebec, they probably still lose Montreal in 1760, but with another relief effort that somehow makes it through, perhaps they could have held on for a little while longer.

If the British are defeated at Québec, I'm not sure they would still attack Montréal the next year. Québec was the nerve center of the colony, and thus the more logical target for the British.

The British might just decide to consolidate their gains in the Ohio country instead, as that was their primary objective.
 
Last edited:
If the British are defeated at Québec, I'm not sure they would still attack Montréal the next year. Québec was the nerve center of the colony, and thus the more logical target for the British.

The British might just decide to consolidate their gains in the Ohio country instead, as that was their primary objective.

The second paragraph seems rather unlikely. While the war goal would certainly be the Ohio, seizing the St. Lawrence settlements will kill two birds with one stone as any French position in the region will be untenable so long as the British hold the main trade artery and population center of New France. The few isolated French garrisons would wither on the vine and have no hope of reinforcement, nor would France be able to viably retain their position in any post-war arrangement.
 
The second paragraph seems rather unlikely. While the war goal would certainly be the Ohio, seizing the St. Lawrence settlements will kill two birds with one stone as any French position in the region will be untenable so long as the British hold the main trade artery and population center of New France. The few isolated French garrisons would wither on the vine and have no hope of reinforcement, nor would France be able to viably retain their position in any post-war arrangement.

Capturing Québec City is hard. It's in a defensible location and the walls of the city were strong. Montcalm could have probably just waited out the British, as it was mid-September, but he lost his nerve OTL and decided to fight.

Suppose Montcalm keeps his sang froid and the British withdraw after about a 4 month siege. The British certainly could try again in 1760, but what would be different? The French could adopt the same strategy. The climate of Canada doesn't encourage long sieges.
 
I think the "French take Quebec" is an English as a second language thing, though having the French take Quebec, allowing it to be called something else, would be a good AHC.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is a decisive battle in that it was a dramatic end to French North America, though if you want to nitpick they held Montreal for another year and might have still gotten Canada back in the peace treaty. In terms of the military situation, though, if it went the other way it that would have delayed the inevitable. British control of the seas and the (pretty massive) population difference between Canada and the British colonies meant that the French did well to hold on as long as they did. Leaving aside the other British army under Amherst, the British would have just kept trying, in another war if not the next year.
 
Given the difference in manpower between French America and British America, the best the French can achieve if they triumph is regaining Acadia and Newfoundland.

The British colonies would remain limited east of the Appalachians ... if the French begin settling North America on turbo mode to have a better balance of powers in front of the anglo-saxon settlers.

But anyway, the decisive victory was not in North America but in India.
 
I think the "French take Quebec" is an English as a second language thing, though having the French take Quebec, allowing it to be called something else, would be a good AHC.

The Battle of the Plains of Abraham is a decisive battle in that it was a dramatic end to French North America, though if you want to nitpick they held Montreal for another year and might have still gotten Canada back in the peace treaty. In terms of the military situation, though, if it went the other way it that would have delayed the inevitable. British control of the seas and the (pretty massive) population difference between Canada and the British colonies meant that the French did well to hold on as long as they did. Leaving aside the other British army under Amherst, the British would have just kept trying, in another war if not the next year.

I don't know. I think the Ohio valley will inevitably be conquered by the British (given the OTL 1750 populations) but I think it's possible that Canada can remain French. American settlers were more interested in moving west than north.
 
Capturing Québec City is hard. It's in a defensible location and the walls of the city were strong. Montcalm could have probably just waited out the British, as it was mid-September, but he lost his nerve OTL and decided to fight.

Suppose Montcalm keeps his sang froid and the British withdraw after about a 4 month siege. The British certainly could try again in 1760, but what would be different? The French could adopt the same strategy. The climate of Canada doesn't encourage long sieges.

Nothing would be different; Montcalm and his men can come out of Quebec City come auteaum. Only there's nothing in the fields to harvest to refill the graineries in fortress: the British have foraged those fields or purposefully burned them to encourage desertions from the militia long ago. There won't be anything much to refill their rifles with either, since the Royal Navy controls the Gulf and the region doesn't have the capacity to mass produce bullets, gunpowder, or shells, nor anywhere close to smuggle from, and its a long way to France. Anybody who gets sick or dies from incidental wounds won't be getting replaced either: from where would he be getting reinforcements?

The British don't need to siege the city itself a conventional way. They effectively have the entirety of the region under siege.
 
Nothing would be different; Montcalm and his men can come out of Quebec City come auteaum. Only there's nothing in the fields to harvest to refill the graineries in fortress: the British have foraged those fields or purposefully burned them to encourage desertions from the militia long ago. There won't be anything much to refill their rifles with either, since the Royal Navy controls the Gulf and the region doesn't have the capacity to mass produce bullets, gunpowder, or shells, nor anywhere close to smuggle from, and its a long way to France. Anybody who gets sick or dies from incidental wounds won't be getting replaced either: from where would he be getting reinforcements?

The British don't need to siege the city itself a conventional way. They effectively have the entirety of the region under siege.

They need a battle. It is a major logistical effort for the British to keep that seige up. IOTL they had tons of sick soldiers and morale was quite low by September. Montcalm's decision to engage was a big break for them.

They can decide to try again the next year but Québec is a tough nut to crack and the upside of controlling it is not that great from their perspective. Canada's only export commodity is furs. Launching a second campaign there, after losing a lot of soldiers to illness in the first, is a questionable decision from their standpoint.
 
Last edited:
They need a battle. It is a major logistical effort for the British to keep that seige up. IOTL they had tons of sick soldiers and morale was quite low by September. Montcalm's decision to engage was a big break for them.

They can decide to try again the next year but Québec is a tough nut to crack and the upside of controlling it is not that great from their perspective. Canada's only export commodity is furs. Launching a second campaign there, after losing a lot of soldiers to illness in the first, is a questionable decision from their standpoint.

... they don't need to wage another campaign. The damage has already been done and France doesn't have access to the resources, manpower, sense of civilian security ect. to repair it even if they manage to make it through the winter themselves and get back into a self-sustaining system for the next year. There's no need to crack the nut when I've cut out the roots of the tree: all I need to do is wait and it will die and the rot will set in. Now, if the theature was more decisive to the overall outcome of the war or we were talking about an era of faster communication and movements, I'd concede there was an incentive for the British to do something. However, the North American theature is tangential and on the fringes of importance, Quebec is isolated and distant from the Metro, and getting messages and especially large quantities of anything between the two takes quite awhile.
 
... they don't need to wage another campaign. The damage has already been done and France doesn't have access to the resources, manpower, sense of civilian security ect. to repair it even if they manage to make it through the winter themselves and get back into a self-sustaining system for the next year. There's no need to crack the nut when I've cut out the roots of the tree: all I need to do is wait and it will die and the rot will set in. Now, if the theature was more decisive to the overall outcome of the war or we were talking about an era of faster communication and movements, I'd concede there was an incentive for the British to do something. However, the North American theature is tangential and on the fringes of importance, Quebec is isolated and distant from the Metro, and getting messages and especially large quantities of anything between the two takes quite awhile.

IOTL, New France was still able to wage war following the loss of Québec; it won at Ste-Foy the following spring. Without reinforcements from France it can't fight indefinitely but it probably can defend the city in another siege. Britain will still have to fight to capture the city.

Britain certainly can win a battle of attrition there, but I'm not sure how badly they want to. If the 1759 campaign ends in failure, Pitt might conclude that it's a waste of manpower trying to capture the city again, and redirect the military focus elsewhere.
 
IOTL, New France was still able to wage war following the loss of Québec; it won at Ste-Foy the following spring. Without reinforcements from France it can't fight indefinitely but it probably can defend the city in another siege. Britain will still have to fight to capture the city.

Britain certainly can win a battle of attrition there, but I'm not sure how badly they want to. If the 1759 campaign ends in failure, Pitt might conclude that it's a waste of manpower trying to capture the city again, and redirect the military focus elsewhere.

I'm not sure you're grasping my point. I'm asserting that even if you dissuade the British from any military action at all, the after effects of the campaign they've already conducted; taking out the harvest/disrupting farmland, generating a climate of threat to the outlying communities and local native auxilleries, depleting French war material, setting up tight control over the viable routes to the outside world, ect., has made New France a spent force that, while they can hold some ground, have zero chance of reversing any of Britain's gains or regenerating their ability to do so. Given that, British forces don't even have to campaign and in terms of the speed in which France can respond the results will be the same as if they conducted a major full on siege of the city proper
 
the results will be the same as if they conducted a major full on siege of the city proper
By that do you mean with regards to the war effort or over all? Because Quebec not flying the Union Jack by the end of the war would probably result in a different peace deal.

the after effects of the campaign they've already conducted; taking out the harvest/disrupting farmland, generating a climate of threat to the outlying communities and local native auxilleries, depleting French war material, setting up tight control over the viable routes to the outside world, ect.,
Couldn't this be resolved by capturing a few British forts?
 
Top