WI: French victory in the French and Indian war?

Why wouldn't there be? If they get slaughtered by the French and Indians the survivors will howl for vengeance.

And why wouldn't the Royal Navy get involved in weakening France's hold given the long tradition of Anglo-French hostility?
Did they got control of Louisiana that way? No, why would it change? But then again I am not an expert of that time period or any ime period for that matter.
 
Did they got control of Louisiana that way? No, why would it change?

They did push west into Kentucky and Ohio country in that fashion, Louisiana would have been the next step.

Even was the next step once we're looking at an independent US.

The whole problem is that hordes of settlers pushing west not happening would be a change.
 
By this point several British colonies were beginning to field standing armies and even carrying out military operations while the question for the French colonies is how much can France send for defense on a permanent basis and when will it arrive.

This makes the the position of which side is behind the cost curve painfully clear, not to mention that by this point the French colonists en masse are outnumbered by several individual British colonies.
 
The whole problem is that hordes of settlers pushing west not happening would be a change.

Just a question. What are the economical, demographical or sociological reasons for those settlers ? Could they be avoided with less immigration ?
 
What if chaos took into the colonies? Is there anything that could have been BAD enough to turn colonists on colonists, or colonists against the colonial forces? Something bad-crazy enough that the frenches would have been considered less important to deal with?

A rise of anti-catholic feelings, like the thread on that plot in ENgland? Could the catholics even turned to frenches for help?
 
Since it was birth rate rather than immigration which led to so much of the population explosion in the British colonies...:(

And the desire for large areas of land to call one's own (which would be hard to change given how deeply rooted it is at this point) pushed them west.
 
And the desire for large areas of land to call one's own (which would be hard to change given how deeply rooted it is at this point) pushed them west.

Okay another stupid question : what were the inheritance law before and after the american revolution ?
 
New France faces four large obstacles to its survival, let alone victory:

1) Population. As of 1754 the population of New France was roughly 70,000. Add to that another two thousand or so friendly Indians. The English colonies at the same time had a population of nearly one million. The New French are outnumbered almost 15 to 1; not good odds.

2) Resources. New France imported almost every necessity, not excepting food in some years. In contrast the thirteen colonies were essentially self-sufficient. If supply from France is interrupted for any length of time the New French will quickly begin to run out of essential materials, while such interruption would only be a nuisance for the English.

3) The Royal Navy. The French Navy is no match for the British, either in quantity or quality. The British could shut off the flow of supplies and reinforcements to New France whenever it suited them to do so. They could also bring sufficient force to bear to seize any point in New France whenever they chose to do so.

4) The French administration. New France was often neglected in favor of the more profitable French West Indian islands, just as the French navy was often neglected in favor of the army.

New France might overcome one of those obstacles, or maybe two. All four together mean that New France is doomed the moment the British decide to take it.
 
And they sent only some 3k settlers. New france had a MUCH smaller population than the 13 colonies.

I think that was because France limited colonization to Catholics only. If they had gone the same way as England/Britain, and allowed religious dissadents to settle in the New World, they might have had a lot more people over here. Instead, many of those Huguenots went to Britain, Germany and Scandinavia; those that weren't killed. Allow them to leave and make their mark in New France instead and the survivors would still be loyal to the French Crown.
Of course, You'd need a very much earlier PoD for this, maybe in the 1600s, so that they could build up the population necessary to make a war in North America winnable. I'm just not sure how the Native Americans would feel about all of this...... :eek:
 
Last edited:
What if chaos took into the colonies? Is there anything that could have been BAD enough to turn colonists on colonists, or colonists against the colonial forces? Something bad-crazy enough that the frenches would have been considered less important to deal with?

A rise of anti-catholic feelings, like the thread on that plot in ENgland? Could the catholics even turned to frenches for help?

Oh, there were some disagreements between the colonies. Virginia's dispute with Pennsylvania over the Ohio country and the New York dispute with New Hampshire over the Hampshire Grants (later Vermont) come to mind. But the threat from the Catholic French outweighed any petty squabbles between neighbors in the minds of most colonists, almost all of whom were solidly Protestant. (Even in Maryland, which was founded as a haven for English Catholics.)

As long as there was a common enemy, whether Red Indian, Catholic French, or Redcoats, the colonies stood together. It wasn't until a century later that their differences tore them apart.
 
I think that was because France limited colonization to Catholics only. If they had gone the same way as England/Britain, and allowed religious dissadents to settle in the New World, they might have had a lot more people over here. Instead, many of those Huguenots went to Britain, Germany and Scandinavia; those that weren't killed. Allow them to leave and make their mark in New France instead and the survivors would still be loyal to the French Crown.
Of course, You'd need a very much earlier PoD for this, maybe in the 1600s, so that they could build up the population necessary to make a war in North America winnable. I'm just not sure how the Native Americans would feel about all of this...... :eek:

Your assumption is correct. Only French Catholics were permitted to settle in French colonies (all colonies, not just New France). And for the record I did propose a POD of a wiser humbler Louis XIV writing a slightly different Edict of Fontainebleu (which in IOTL revoked the Edict of Nantes). In mine the Edict just evicts Huguenots from France proper, not from all French territory. In that circumstance many would probably choose to come to New France or other French colonies rather than move to foreign countries.
 
Top