What if the French win - The Battle of Quebec

Has there ever been a thread where the group examines this scenario- What if the French win - The Battle of Quebec in1759

A major turning point in the history of North America, the battle at the Plains of Abraham allowed the British to claim virtually all of North America- prior to the revolutionary war. Any thoughts?

Judah
 
The Battle of the Plains of Abraham was in 1759. The Seven Years War lasted till 1763. So a British loss might simply mean they come back the very next year and try again. The British had had bad losses in previous years, such as at Ticonderoga, but kept coming back with more forces to carry the fight to the French.

There would need to be a series of French victories to roll back the British to keep Canada. Including things like retaking Louisbourg and securing the Acadian population from expulsion/deportation.
 
Valid points, however- the Plains of Abraham was pivotal, as Louisbourg seemed to change hands several times.
 
Valid points, however- the Plains of Abraham was pivotal, as Louisbourg seemed to change hands several times.

Sure, with Quebec City gone, its game over for the French in Canada. But the war wasn't looking too good for them to start with the fact the Brits felt like they could send an expedition there in the first place.

Best way to win the battle is to not let the Brits get their forces up the cliffs and on to the plains in the first place. I imagine it would have been very bloody if the French had caught them in the middle of the night with a thousand men strung out along the cliff climbing up.

Defeating Wolfe and the Brits is a good first step. Hurts the enemy and brings more time to the French. What can the French do with more time and a somewhat weaker enemy?

With a bad defeat of Wolfe, does Quebec get a reputation with its cliffs as being impregnable? That might be the best outcome the French could hope for, stalemate. They keep Quebec and eastern Ontario in a peace treaty, but give up claims to anything further west???
 
Speaking of the Revolutionary War, if France is still holding territory in North America could this possibly discourage some of the revolters?
 
Speaking of the Revolutionary War, if France is still holding territory in North America could this possibly discourage some of the revolters?

I always thought that the British defeat of the French in North America was a necessary condition for the American Revolution. If the French had remained a credible threat to the British colonies, they would never have dared leaving the British protective umbrella, at least not for a significant additional length of time, until they eventually felt secure on their own, without British military help.
 
I always thought that the British defeat of the French in North America was a necessary condition for the American Revolution. If the French had remained a credible threat to the British colonies, they would never have dared leaving the British protective umbrella, at least not for a significant additional length of time, until they eventually felt secure on their own, without British military help.

We'd probably still have some complaints about taxation when the army failed, but they could be drowned out by people welcoming moves such as 'we need a permanent standing army in the colonies', and might be amenable to the next sentance being 'so could help pay for it'.

Certainly they're more likely to accept the notion of having to pay for an army if there's a valid external threat.
 
The thing is, if the French win here, the British can just keep coming back again and again. French stretegy in the war was to trade land in Europe for colonies in the peace agreement, since they felt they would lose their colonies eventually.
Montcalm can only fight with what he's got, and in OTL he relied more and more on native allies as the war dragged on. His letters for reinforcement from home keep getting rebuffed and by 1759 the British have taken Louisburg so he won't be getting any reinforcements even if the French Government wanted to give them to him.
On the British side of things, as they win in India and the carribean they can shift troops around to besiege Quebec again. By this time, Montcalm will have little manpower left to hold them and you get an OTL defeat.
The French didn't raise a whole bunch of colonial militia either, they didn't have the population for it. The British did, so even if all of the troops from the various colonial theatres that the british won in, get shifted to Europe to shore up the Prussians, then the British Colonial Militia Regiments still get to fight on.
 
The thing is, if the French win here, the British can just keep coming back again and again. French stretegy in the war was to trade land in Europe for colonies in the peace agreement, since they felt they would lose their colonies eventually.

England/Britain tried to attack Quebec in 1690 and 1711 and failed both times. Another failed invasion in 1759 would be discouraging for them. I don't think they'd try again so soon.

Keep in mind, Britain's main objective in North America during the war was capturing the Ohio Valley. That was what the American settlers really coveted. For most of them, New France wasn't so much a threat (at most, the Canadiens could launch the occasional raid into New England - they could never conquer a British colony outright) as simply a barrier to westward expansion. The conquest of Canada was more an unexpected bonus for them.
 
England/Britain tried to attack Quebec in 1690 and 1711 and failed both times. Another failed invasion in 1759 would be discouraging for them. I don't think they'd try again so soon.

Keep in mind, Britain's main objective in North America during the war was capturing the Ohio Valley. That was what the American settlers really coveted. For most of them, New France wasn't so much a threat (at most, the Canadiens could launch the occasional raid into New England - they could never conquer a British colony outright) as simply a barrier to westward expansion. The conquest of Canada was more an unexpected bonus for them.

Being 'simply a barrier to westward expansion' is more than enough for many of the colonials to want Quebec captured.
 
Being 'simply a barrier to westward expansion' is more than enough for many of the colonials to want Quebec captured.

Canada itself was not the barrier. The colonists weren't that interested in northern expansion. French control of the Ohio Valley was the real issue. The British/Americans would have been pretty satisfied with control of the Ohio Valley. It's hard to predict what would have happened to British-colonial relations in the event of a peace settlement that would have reduced New France to just OTL Canada.
 
Keep in mind, Britain's main objective in North America during the war was capturing the Ohio Valley. That was what the American settlers really coveted.
Capturing the Ohio Valley was what the American settlers wanted most, yes, but that doesn't automatically make it what the British government most wanted too...
 
Canada itself was not the barrier. The colonists weren't that interested in northern expansion. French control of the Ohio Valley was the real issue. The British/Americans would have been pretty satisfied with control of the Ohio Valley. It's hard to predict what would have happened to British-colonial relations in the event of a peace settlement that would have reduced New France to just OTL Canada.

But while the French controlled both Quebec and Louisiana they would have influence along the Mississippi and Ohio valleys.

At least one end had to come under British control to ensure westward colonial expansion.

Now a 'what if' in which New Orleans and Lousiana becomes British but Quebec remains French might be interesting. Might we see today an independent Louisiana with English and French speaking communities but a USA we expanded northwards after a 'Quebec purchase'.
 
If Quebec holds in 1759, then the British will probably try again later until peace comes, and it will remain the focus of the NA theatre. As long as the French hold Quebec, they can launch raids into NE and against occupied Acadia....

Regiments from NA that went into the Caribbean subsequent to the fall will not be available. the Caribbean campaign against the Islands and Havana is delayed and or weaker.

Even if Quebec fell later in 1760/61. the French may hold more of their Caribbean possessions at the peace and Havana may not have been captured

Spain keeps Florida.... France keeps Louisiana, with a suitably ambiguous border in the east as what characterized Acadia. Or they trade it or parts of it to obtain French Canada back and or Acadia.

If France exchanges Louisiana or even just the Eastern portion of it...the pressure on Br. America is removed to a more acceptable distance, but they can still project influence to the traditional native allies.

There probably won't be an offer to exchange any of the islands in the Caribbean for French Canada, as the British will probably hold less of them, just how many depends on when and if French Canada is captured...there is definitely though enough divergence to delay the capture of Havana, allowing for greater reinforcement and fortification making a more difficult
siege, that may fail or simply out last the war.

oooohh...lets see potential for instance for French Canada, Revolutionary America, Br. Louisiana ( the later two under the right circumstances of course, and Spanish Florida.
 
Top