What would the French foreign policy be after a harsher 7YW peace?

In our timeline, through a combination of strategy and fortune, Britain was in a extremely dominant position in 1762. She had taken New France, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Havana, Senegal, French India and Manila. What's more, they had entirely confined both the Spanish and French fleets to be confined in ports without chance of escape.

In this context, William Pitt felt that many other French and Spanish colonies were ripe for the plucking. With unchallenged naval supremacy, he wanted one more year of war to truly crush the Bourbon alliance. But political changes were against him: the new King and his allies were wary about the power that was accruing to Pitt, and decided to quickly make peace on generous terms. The sheer number of territories given back was highly unpopular with the British public, and was criticized even by establishment pragmatists like the Duke of Newcastle. However, eagerness to please the new King meant that parliament voted it through with a large majority. And the British also lost out further because they did not know they had captured Manila at the time of the treaty signing.

But let's assume George II lived a little longer, and Britain found out about the capture of Manila, occupied a few more colonies and forced a tough peace on France, who was on her knees financially. What would the French foreign policy be afterwards?

Would they be looking for a quick turnaround and try to get revenge as soon as possible, via a war over the Corsican crisis or the Falklands crisis? Or would they accept they are in a much weaker position and have to build up their military capacity over five, ten, fifteen years? Would the nobility be willing to accept tax rises to overcome the utter humiliation of it all?
 
I think you'd see an even more determined buildup, and perhaps a stronger attempt at reform. I'm not sure the Corsican crisis would trigger a war ATL; it didn't OTL, and France won.

But France's plan was to wait for Britain to make a major mistake, most likely in America, and strike then. This is why it didn't intervene in the Falklands War; it wanted a more favorable opportunity.
 
A triumphant Britain could be more aggressive on Corsica here though, if Pitt was still in charge.

Sure, but are you positing a Pitt that stays in office indefinitely? I think he was a bit optimistic about how easy it was to seize most colonies, as well. Look at the British attempts to seize Uruguay and Argentina or Santo Domingo sixty years later.
 
Interesting inquiry, I hadn't thought of that.

I think France would have bided its time until the American Revolution and struck then. No doubt they would have attempted to reconquer some of their lost territories there.

Perhaps an actual French invasion of Quebec in 1778? Without resources expended defending/assaulting the West Indies, France could probably have mobilized far more manpower on the continent itself.

Perhaps a 20,000 man expedition to Quebec with another 10,000 sent to support George Washington in New York. These are probably close to the number of men that were sent OTL to defend the territories in the West Indies returned by the British in 1763. No doubt half dies of Yellow Fever and Malaria so the soldiers will be happy.

They also might have made more of an attempt to colonize Louisiana post 1763, assuming France managed to retain it. In hindsight, if Spain had not enteredt he war in 1762, that might have been Amheart's next target rather than Havana. He was given his choice of targets by Pitt after Quebec fell in 1759 and Montreal in 1760.

A French Louisiana with a greater population might have made an American conquest more difficult in the early 19th century.
 
Sure, but are you positing a Pitt that stays in office indefinitely? I think he was a bit optimistic about how easy it was to seize most colonies, as well. Look at the British attempts to seize Uruguay and Argentina or Santo Domingo sixty years later.

I agree he was overoptimistic - they had some failed descents in OTL 7YW. However, I think we need to be careful about looking for sixty years later as evidence. Colonial settlements were a lot larger in the 1800s than they were in the 1760s. A sustained attack on the River Plate at this point would have almost certainly won out, though I don't know if the British would have targeted it.

Pitt would have likely retired due to illness at some point, but I could see him having another five years. Even if he didn't, the Brits are going to have a superiority aggressive complex at this point.
 
They also might have made more of an attempt to colonize Louisiana post 1763, assuming France managed to retain it. In hindsight, if Spain had not enteredt he war in 1762, that might have been Amheart's next target rather than Havana. He was given his choice of targets by Pitt after Quebec fell in 1759 and Montreal in 1760.

A French Louisiana with a greater population might have made an American conquest more difficult in the early 19th century.

France gave away Louisiana to Spain in our timeline, to stop it being on the negotiation table. I can't see why that would change in this scenario.
 
France gave away Louisiana to Spain in our timeline, to stop it being on the negotiation table. I can't see why that would change in this scenario.

I would be assuming that Napoleon would take it back in 1802, like OTL, or something changed like Spain never entered the 7 Years war and therefore never got Louisiana from France.

I don't think France gave it away to avoid losing it to the British. They had to compensate Spain for losing Florida in a vain attempt to maintain their alliance.
 
I agree he was overoptimistic - they had some failed descents in OTL 7YW. However, I think we need to be careful about looking for sixty years later as evidence. Colonial settlements were a lot larger in the 1800s than they were in the 1760s. A sustained attack on the River Plate at this point would have almost certainly won out, though I don't know if the British would have targeted it.
.

Why would it have almost certainly won out? Britain also had a smaller population and economy in the 1760s as well, and the logistics of transoceanic expeditions were less developed as well.
 
I would be assuming that Napoleon would take it back in 1802, like OTL.

Ah - you said post-1763, which misled me. But again, if we ignore butterflies, then France can't really colonise Louisiana until 1815, which is very late in the day.

It's always possible that Britain becoming so strong means the French and Spanish band together a lot more, and Spain allows French settlement there to protect from the British.
 
Top