If France conquers India,it's gonna become an economic superpower.It will be able to afford both a strong navy and army at the same time.Britain will just stand by and do nothing as it's settlers get slaughtered when they tried to cross into the French border illegally.There's not much these Anglo-American settlers can do either--they will be fighting against the French army,one of the best armies at the time,who will most likely be aided by native allies.
What if France won the global 7 Years War, when would BNA colonists "Texas" Across the Appalachians?
- Thread starter raharris1973
- Start date
Conversely, it is entirely possible, because it happened post war. The French tried to send around 13-14,000 settlers to French Guiana after the war, immediately afterwards in fact in 1763-1765, largely in response to interest in English style settler colonialism. This was a failure due to diseases on the ground (one author tries to claim that it was only due to bad planning and it would have worked out splendidly otherwise, but I have my... severe doubts, about that hypothesis), but the settler colonialism impulse is not only possible, but indeed historically happened.
Presuming the French win the Seven Year's War, the problems with France's North American strategy will still probably be exposed, as the severe population deficit will have led to severe difficulties resisting English offensives in this theatre. It is not only possibly, but indeed probably, that just as historically the French will come to the conclusion that they need to found settler colonies of their own to compete with the English. The main difference from OTL is that they actually have colonies where they can do that.
Just use the native Americans and some French troops to form a picket against the British colonists. The British hadn't been able to restrict their own people from moving across, but I doubt that the British tried as hard as the French would.... to the French, it isn't a diplomatic nuisance, it is an invasion, and the French response in movement into their territory could be a military one, unlike the British who gradually extended their lines of settlement West and never did much to actually stop the colonists.
While I've never seen any document estimating the cost of colonial expeditions as a whole, wikipedia lists the British First Fleet to Australia as costing £84,000 to outfit and dispatch, the equivalent of £9.6 million as of 2015. While there were doubtless other expenses, I can't imagine that they drove the costs up that much, as compared to the cost of, well, sending a fleet of 11 ships and 1,000 to 1,500 people to Australia. If we assume the French send the equivalent number of settlers that the British sent to their North American colonies per year in the 1760-1765 period, which was 9,200, then that is around 6-9 more than was sent to Australia. Therefor, assuming that costs hold the same, that is only around £57.6 to 86.4 million in present sums for the French to send the same number in a state-backed project. It would presumably be significantly less actually, since North America is closer and they're shipping their settlers to established colonial territory. Let's say 40 million. I'm not sure where to convert British pounds of the era to French livres, but that isn't a huge expense.
The Mississippi Company itself was not the cause of the French financial situation, but rather a result. Nothing in wikipedia's article on it suggests that it was an especially expensive undertaking; conversely, it was its failure to fix the French financial situation which gained it notoriety.
Disease, problems with natives, and government on the ground is more problematic, but I would suggest that these issues are over-estimated. The French have a vast amount of territory in which they can potentially settle, and it wouldn't be that difficult to go to one region, accept that the natives there are lost to France, and continue friendly relations with other Indians - like the Indians on the East side of the Mississippi, who can make a useful buffer against the British, supported by French troops and weapons. Similarly, the French have a vast amount of terrain; not everybody needs to be settled into the Louisiana bayous or even modern Louisiana in general, they could go to Quebec or to the north of Louisiana.
It wasn't so easy to move to Upper Louisiana, since before steamboats you couldn't get much further past nowadays Natchez, Mississippi or so by river. Thus an inherent limit on France's capabilities there compared to the easier to settle East Coast. Not insurmountable of course, just more challenging. And then the far worse issue of the fact that any intensive French colonisation will certainly provoke their Indian allies into potentially reconsidering their loyalties.
So basically build up France in the Plains? That kinda runs them headlong into the Spanish. Any early colonisation of the Great Plains almost certainly means a direct fight with the natives over the only real viable land in the river valleys. And the "Old West" between Appalachia and the Mississippi is still a mostly vacant borderland.
It hardly looks to me like the Spanish claimed the Mississippi river. There's plenty of land along there, it would seem to me, that the French would be able to accommodate large-by-the-standards-of-the-time populations along the Mississippi, since after all we're probably talking about less than a hundred thousand people even in the most optimistic settlement patterns. In particular Quebec is a viable settler destination as well, with the best regions of Canada under its control.
Well the population is primarily from Haiti or Saint-Domingue. It still is the largest single group in terms of Europeans at 35% of the population including all groups (the largest group is of African descent at 48%, this is then followed by French which in turn is followed by the rest of the American melting pot). Admittedly almost all of this growth of Gallic peoples was following the First French period and during the Spanish dominion and the American rule there since.
I don't disagree with you, but it is not completely inhospitable. Also, I am oddly very interested in the area and have actually been to these areas and tried to do some research in the past. Very interesting in my opinion.
France isn't going to conquer India. It could end up in a better position in India than OTL, but even the British didn't manage to completely conquer India until well into the 19th century. The French would be somewhat richer, but not enough to overcome the naval deficit (since the British would absolutely respond to a defeat and a naval arms race by investing even more in the Royal Navy), which also means that their holdings in India and the New World would be cut off during a war, just as OTL.
The Americans won't be fighting the French Army; the French Army has far more important things to do in Europe than play border patrol in the middle of the wilderness (and again, it's a huge area; the size of an army needed to truly seal off the Appalachians would be on the order of the entire pre-Revolutionary French Army). They might fight some colonial militia, but the Americans can and will outnumber them handily. Likewise with the various native allies (who would be the main opposition); they were unable to stop the American expansion OTL, and won't be able to have permanent success here either. Especially since a major expansion of French colonization is likely to alienate some of the natives as well (who won't be much happier about French colonists stealing their land than they were about English colonists doing the same).
The British will absolutely be looking forward to the next round of the wars, just as the French did OTL, and colonial skirmishing can and will serve as a perfectly adequate pretext. OTL after the disasters of the 7YW, the French were ready for the next round by 1778 (15 years); the British would likely be ready for the next round on more or less the same time frame (they won't have the American Revolution as an excuse, but they'll likely be in a better position financially than the French were OTL).
As for expenses? The colonization of Australia was made cheaper for a couple reasons: the colonists were convicts, and thus could be much cheaper living standards (especially since Australia is vastly healthier a climate than most of Louisiana) and there was little opposition. The Australian Aborigines were literally stone age, and fairly small in population. The Native Americans have significantly more powerful confederations, and the British and Spanish are lurking in the background. Constructing and supplying a chain of forts in the middle of the North American wilderness is more expensive than supplying a few lightly fortified coastal settlement in Australia. Not to mention the difficulty in finding volunteers to settle in the New World (whereas convicts don't really have much alternative); escaping "into the bush" and going native (or defecting to the British/French) was also easier in the Americas than in Australia.
It hardly looks to me like the Spanish claimed the Mississippi river. There's plenty of land along there, it would seem to me, that the French would be able to accommodate large-by-the-standards-of-the-time populations along the Mississippi, since after all we're probably talking about less than a hundred thousand people even in the most optimistic settlement patterns. In particular Quebec is a viable settler destination as well, with the best regions of Canada under its control.
Not so much the Mississippi but the Mississippi basin. And it goes without saying that the easiest to reach land and closest to French civilisation runs right up alongside Spanish borders, even if the Comanche were the real rulers of Spanish Texas in the late 18th century.
Britain only managed to become the richest nation in the 18th century because of it's control over India.OP expressly said that in this case scenario,France has become much stronger in India at the expense of the British.The British ain't gonna be able to afford a naval arms race.They will most likely be ruined by the expenses of the 7YW already.The 7YW wasn't cheap for Britain either.They were also ruined by it IOTL,it's why they had to tax the Americans.Though in this case,I think the Americans will be quite happy to pay British taxes without representation.
The Americans will be fighting the French army just like OTL.In OTL,the French had regulars patrolling their colonies,the Troupes de marine ,whereas the British clearly did not.If the French does increase colonization,their presence will also be much stronger.
France will likely be stronger in the years between as well considering their expanded control over India.
Last edited:
Britain only really started profiting from India in a really big way after the 7YW (when they managed to secure Bengal); they had already cemented their position as the #1 naval power before that point. Even a complete defeat in Bengal and Madras (which is about the maximum possible extent of a French victory) leaves them with Bombay and environs, so they will still be making significant profits from trade. The British had a much better financial system, and were also profiting quite a bit from their other assets (e.g. Caribbean sugar islands). It's true that the British also had significant expenses, but any war is going to hit both fairly hard; indeed, a British defeat probably means the war is shorter and thus cheaper (since a long war favors the British in the colonies, where their massive population advantage can be brought to bear).
Again, the British have the advantage that they don't need to support a full-sized army like France does, so they can and did focus on the navy. They have a much more developed and successful naval tradition, and can maintain that edge easily.
The French had a fairly small force in the colonies; 2600 regulars by the time of the 7YW. That's enough to defend the main settlements from a British invasion; it's not enough to patrol a massive frontier region. The British sent about 1300 regulars just for Braddock's Expedition in 1755 to try and take Ft. Duquesne, while the British garrison of Boston alone at the start of the Revolutionary War was 4000 regulars. If the French want to actually station enough troops to defend the entire Ohio Valley (which, again, is both huge and mostly wilderness), they are going to have to spend far more than they could possibly afford, all for land that isn't going to provide them with much monetary return.
And of course, as long as the British maintain naval dominance (which they will), any French garrison in the colonies is more or less cut off from the metropole for the duration.
The issue with the premise of this thread is that it takes the OTL separation of Texas from Mexico and assumes that the case can be generalized as "numerically superior Anglo-Americans move into less densely populated area and then secede." However, Mexico at the time could barely administer Mexico proper, let alone Texas, so obviously secessionist movements (Anglo-American or otherwise) would have a fair chance of success. In addition, OTL many of the settlers were initially content to be Mexican citizens and there were also many who opposed secession. My point is that the factors that led to Mexico losing Texas are not present in this ATL French Louisiana. Instead of the weak and fractured government in the Texan case we would have a wealthier and emboldened France fresh out of the alt-Seven Years War. There is definitely going to be immigration from BNA into the French territories, but I doubt they're going to secede just for the kicks of it. They'll probably just end up assimilating. Even any alt-secessionist movement is likely to meet with failure because presumably France is a great power in this ATL.
It will take some changes in French policies for the French to just accept these colonists.The French clearly did not want Protestants in their colonies.
unprincipled peter
Donor
lot of points
the English were by no means destined to become the masters of the continent. At the time of the war, the English had to build roads just to get to the line of contention. Ditto for when those nasty canadians, er English, tried to invade NY a couple of decades latter. The colonies may have had a logical fear of French invasion, but they propagated such fears by constantly invading French areas in the north east. once the borders are settled, which they would be in this war, neither side would be looking to occupy contested lands, because they're no longer contested.
The French problem is that they ignored the navy. switch this so that France can transport troops, and Britain doesn't rule everywhere but on the continent. France doesn't have to be top dog. they just have to be in contention to be a dog, rather than the mangy mutt they were OTL.
the population difference: F and I war hit at the best possible time for the British, which is why they pushed so hard for it. After a certain point, having 100, or 200, 300 thousand French is enough to repel british invaders, especially if the mother country can reinforce them. IMO, there isn't a chance in hades the colonies win F & I on their own, to the extent Britain did. with minimal French help, and maximum British help, the English still took several years to win in north america. What happens if France wins the war is that the colonies accept their borders, basically along the line of 1763. Borders defined. one major bone of contention eliminated. French aren't encroaching. English aren't encroaching. The French protect their borders, but don't look to take more. English learn to live with it.
the (texas) movement: IF the french are in charge of a territory, they probably can't stop the English from moving in. However, they don't have to protect them from the natives, and they can aid the natives in harrassing unwanted settlers. settlers learn to become french/ assimilated. People aren't going to be so eager to move into a wilderness they know they'll have no protection coupled with active opposition. Texas worked because Mexico invited the settlers, protected them, and then were backstabbed.
the English were by no means destined to become the masters of the continent. At the time of the war, the English had to build roads just to get to the line of contention. Ditto for when those nasty canadians, er English, tried to invade NY a couple of decades latter. The colonies may have had a logical fear of French invasion, but they propagated such fears by constantly invading French areas in the north east. once the borders are settled, which they would be in this war, neither side would be looking to occupy contested lands, because they're no longer contested.
The French problem is that they ignored the navy. switch this so that France can transport troops, and Britain doesn't rule everywhere but on the continent. France doesn't have to be top dog. they just have to be in contention to be a dog, rather than the mangy mutt they were OTL.
the population difference: F and I war hit at the best possible time for the British, which is why they pushed so hard for it. After a certain point, having 100, or 200, 300 thousand French is enough to repel british invaders, especially if the mother country can reinforce them. IMO, there isn't a chance in hades the colonies win F & I on their own, to the extent Britain did. with minimal French help, and maximum British help, the English still took several years to win in north america. What happens if France wins the war is that the colonies accept their borders, basically along the line of 1763. Borders defined. one major bone of contention eliminated. French aren't encroaching. English aren't encroaching. The French protect their borders, but don't look to take more. English learn to live with it.
the (texas) movement: IF the french are in charge of a territory, they probably can't stop the English from moving in. However, they don't have to protect them from the natives, and they can aid the natives in harrassing unwanted settlers. settlers learn to become french/ assimilated. People aren't going to be so eager to move into a wilderness they know they'll have no protection coupled with active opposition. Texas worked because Mexico invited the settlers, protected them, and then were backstabbed.
1The same army that expelled the american and captured Georges Washington: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Necessity
Furthermore, the american colonist will encroach into natives lands, natives that will probably complain to the French, who will send some troops to dislodge them. So they dont need a men each mile, just a good link of fort to garrison the area (which they had)
2The difference is that France hit very bad harvest and starvation some time after the ARW, if they still had New-France they could have sent many peoples there as one thing Canada was known for was bountiful amount of land and wild game. If it wasn't very useful to France in period of stability, when starving peasents menace to revolt sending some thousands across the sea might seem as a good idea. Ontario peninsula was mostly empty of friendly tribes and sending the colonist there would have fix lots of issues, even craftsmens in Quebec would have been welcomed.
But even if the thirteen colonies ''evolved organically'' the problem of the English colonies was that they were disunited, New-york militia would not have lift a single finger if Virginian colonist were expelled by the French soldiers and vice versa. Furthermore, the American militia was unable to force its will on the French without Britain help (see point 1) and if the Brits decide that they dont want to go to war for some expelled colonists then the thirteen colonies can do nothing but wait for an official war and try to gain territory out of it.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Not this again.
Please.
What is the irresistible attraction, cliched at this point, of populating French overseas colonies with Huguenots?
...and what's so inherently inadequate about populating colonies with good French Catholics or indeed Catholics of other European nations (Irish, German, Belgian, Swiss, etc.)?
unprincipled peter
Donor
are you talking about the exact same ohio country, Tennessee, Kentucky that the US had no problem settling BEFORE steam and having to cross a mountain range to get to? The Natchez Trace was a major 'highway' prior to steam. the major issue france had was the Chickasaw. But virtually all other Indians were enemies of the Chickasaw, and, IMO, have been quite happy to see them displaced and French settling en masse Tennesse/Kentucky/northwestern Mississippi. The French bungled a couple of major attempts to eliminate them. If they had succeeded, or even continued to hem them in, everything east of the Mississippi is ripe for French expansion without riling the northern tribes, and quite easy to do so transportation-wise. There's a reason the US so badly wanted control of the Miss, and it wasn't because TN,KY,OH were easier to reach from the east coast. This is still prior to steam. That region was ripe for white encroachment, which is why the US was able to do it so easily, once the French were kicked out.
edit: by east of Miss, I mean the central and northern parts of. The Creek, Choctaw, still controlled the southern (so called malarial swamp) portion. Choctaw were French allies. Creek went with whoever gave the best deal. The Cherokee didn't get to this region til getting pushed out of eastern KY/TN. The Cherokee initially sided with the English for the trade, but came to realize it was a bad deal. Leaving the Cherokee in place, and the Shawnee in place in western Virginia, and arming them makes for a very nice shield against English/American encroachment.
Last edited:
If the Mississippi was so much more important than Quebec, why did the French make cold Quebec the core region of its North American possessions? That seems like a big mistake to me.
IMO, I don't think you'll see a Texas, simply because France would be more pathalogical, plus -they lost, and there are homes to rebuild. I think you'll see Benjamin Franklin proven right, an urgent organisation of a cohesive British American Government, which will be applying near constant pressure on the borders, and petitioning Westminster to invade at any opportunity, and the construction of a fleet based in British North America.
But then again, it does depend on how the war is resolved - France might be more interested in India than North America.
However, I'm not convinced that having Louisiana to colonise would prevent the French Revolution - more success and prestige is all well and good, but why wasn't the region more colonised beforehand? Sure you don't have the increased debts of helping in the ARW - but you still have a series of decadent kings, who might be more decadent with the successes in the Seven Years war - if the Revolution still happens, even if only delayed a few years, then you may not see a "Texas", but a BNA that just doesn't stop its citizens from crossing the border and taking over French towns vigilante style - with France proper in civil war and unable to stop them - and whether Westminster would make the effort to stop them is debatable. They may well take advantage of the situation to seize French colonies in the Caribbean, or even India. Which is slightly scary - as it raises the possibility of a British Empire that has both North America AND India if successful, with the rest of Europe dealing with the Revolution.
Heck, winning the 7 years war didn't go well for the British, why on earth would it go well for the French?
But then again, it does depend on how the war is resolved - France might be more interested in India than North America.
However, I'm not convinced that having Louisiana to colonise would prevent the French Revolution - more success and prestige is all well and good, but why wasn't the region more colonised beforehand? Sure you don't have the increased debts of helping in the ARW - but you still have a series of decadent kings, who might be more decadent with the successes in the Seven Years war - if the Revolution still happens, even if only delayed a few years, then you may not see a "Texas", but a BNA that just doesn't stop its citizens from crossing the border and taking over French towns vigilante style - with France proper in civil war and unable to stop them - and whether Westminster would make the effort to stop them is debatable. They may well take advantage of the situation to seize French colonies in the Caribbean, or even India. Which is slightly scary - as it raises the possibility of a British Empire that has both North America AND India if successful, with the rest of Europe dealing with the Revolution.
Heck, winning the 7 years war didn't go well for the British, why on earth would it go well for the French?
The French made a critical mistake.... Just because a historical state made a decision does not make it correct. I believe for instance that the policy and prevailing notion of the importance of sugar producing islands was mislead and greedy by the colonial powers.
It's debatable if the British really conquered India at all in the truest sense. After all, India is still Indian, not white Anglo.