WI: No Miracle of the House of Brandenburg

[ItsMyKetchup]

I know a French victory in the Seven Years' War is likely a tired trope, like WW1 or WW2, but the geopolitical implications of such a thing would be far reaching and result in a lot of differing paths and it's hard to see which path would be the most plausible.

So, say the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg never happens. The Russians and Austrians occupy Berlin, and knock Prussia out before 1761. This leaves a weakened Prussia in Europe and a victorious Austria, which would probably try to take Silesia and consolidate control over the German states. This leaves Britain alone, in a 3 versus 1 match with no Prussia to deal with the fiasco in Europe, so France and friends win.

So the implications of this drastically change European politics.

With a weakened Prussia, will Austria be the one to unite Germany?
Does France have a larger colonial empire, especially in India and the Caribbean?
Does the French Revolution not happen (or is delayed) because the monarchy isn't in debt?
Do the British still retain their massive navy and become the world's superpower?

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

Have you read "Disaster at Leuthen"? I think it's the best timeline on the subject.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I know a French victory in the Seven Years' War is likely a tired trope, like WW1 or WW2, but the geopolitical implications of such a thing would be far reaching and result in a lot of differing paths and it's hard to see which path would be the most plausible.

So, say the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg never happens. The Russians and Austrians occupy Berlin, and knock Prussia out before 1761. This leaves a weakened Prussia in Europe and a victorious Austria, which would probably try to take Silesia and consolidate control over the German states. This leaves Britain alone, in a 3 versus 1 match with no Prussia to deal with the fiasco in Europe, so France and friends win.

So the implications of this drastically change European politics.

With a weakened Prussia, will Austria be the one to unite Germany?
Does France have a larger colonial empire, especially in India and the Caribbean?
Does the French Revolution not happen (or is delayed) because the monarchy isn't in debt?
Do the British still retain their massive navy and become the world's superpower?

With Prussia neutered, Austria would be the obvious candidate to unite Germany if anyone does, although it's not a given that Germany actually will be united -- IOTL the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars gave a pretty big boost to nationalism in general and to German nationalism in particular, so if the Revolution is butterflied away there might not be the same impetus to unite the German states under a single banner.

After Prussia's knocked out of the war, Britain will most likely sue for peace. Since the country's not been invaded or anything, Britain will almost certainly get to keep its navy and empire, although it will probably have to return some/most/all of the colonies it took from France during the conflict. If Quebec gets returned that probably butterflies away the American Revolution, since the colonists would still want Britain to protect them from the French. This in turn will probably help the French crown's financial solvency, as it was the American Revolution that broke the back of the royal finances IOTL.

 

[Raferty]

If France wants to preserve its colonial empire in the event of a long war, it needs to take the fight to the British Isles. They aren't going to be attaining the naval superiority needed for a different result, but short term control over the Channel isn't completely ASB to contemplate. In the case of a short victory, that is a different matter entirely, and throws up butterflies galore on the status of New France.

 

[AltoRegnant]

They can't take as much, but Britain has still kicked French India's ass right? And New France was doomed from the start given its small population

 

[alexmilman]

I know a French victory in the Seven Years' War is likely a tired trope, like WW1 or WW2, but the geopolitical implications of such a thing would be far reaching and result in a lot of differing paths and it's hard to see which path would be the most plausible.

So, say the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg never happens. The Russians and Austrians occupy Berlin, and knock Prussia out before 1761. This leaves a weakened Prussia in Europe and a victorious Austria, which would probably try to take Silesia and consolidate control over the German states. This leaves Britain alone, in a 3 versus 1 match with no Prussia to deal with the fiasco in Europe, so France and friends win.

So the implications of this drastically change European politics.

With a weakened Prussia, will Austria be the one to unite Germany?
Does France have a larger colonial empire, especially in India and the Caribbean?
Does the French Revolution not happen (or is delayed) because the monarchy isn't in debt?
Do the British still retain their massive navy and become the world's superpower?

Austria is getting Silesia back. Austrian ability to unite Germany is quite limited by a combination of the religious factor, relatively weak army and geopolitical considerations (France, Russia and Britain would oppose it). With this success, chances are that MT is not looking for the 1st Partition.

Russia most probably retains Eastern Prussia. If the peace concluded while EI is still alive, it would be difficult for PIII to reverse this act. Most probably, Russia also annexes Courland to improve connection with a new territory. With the EP being lost, Fritz does not have a reason for advocating the 1st Partition. However, Russia may end up with annexation of the Right Bank Ukraine due to the logistical considerations of the Ottoman war(s).

France still losing most of its colonies: there is no serious leverage to force Britain to return them. Would threat to Hannover be enough of a bargain chip? I’m not sure. Perhaps some of the lost territories could be regained but hardly all. Anyway, the French colonial models both in the Americas and in India were much less robust than the British ones and in the North America population of the French colonies was too small to stand up to the British demographic pressure in a long run. AFAIK, by the time of the 7YW France did not have any plans for expansion in Europe so it is getting nothing. Unless it is unexpectedly important in the terms of contributing to the victory, it can’t even expect getting Austrian Netherlands as a gratitude for helping to get Silesia back. The big debt is still there and could not be paid off by getting contribution from Prussia. The only “gains” are in the lesser territorial losses. Are the French still defeated at Rossbach? If they are, then there is no military glory as a consolation prize.

Britain is in approximately the same position as in OTL: their trade links with Russia were not broken during the 7YW and neither France nor Austria can replace it economically on the continent.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

One potential butterfly: if Britain is technically on the losing side during the war (even if it still gets to keep all the French colonies it took IOTL), the rest of Europe might not fear it as a potential hegemon, meaning that the UK might have an easier time finding allies (or at least stopping other countries declaring war on it) if an American Revolution analogue occurs.

 

[unprincipled peter]

One potential butterfly: if Britain is technically on the losing side during the war (even if it still gets to keep all the French colonies it took IOTL), the rest of Europe might not fear it as a potential hegemon, meaning that the UK might have an easier time finding allies (or at least stopping other countries declaring war on it) if an American Revolution analogue occurs.

On the flip side, though, Britain losing on the continent, but still making fabulous gains (I agree with alexmilman) is largely the same as OTL, where Britain was willing to abandon it's allies. No one is going to want an ally that put the bulk of it's emphasis on making colonial gains and wasn't much help (aside from financial) on the continent.

I don't think France had enough gas left in the tank to roll into Hanover, so as alex said, there's not enough pressure to make Britain cough up gains.

That said, the OP should google (or figure out this site's search function - I can't) this topic. There's several threads on it, which shed a lot of light on whether the miracle was all that miraculous.

 

[alexmilman]

On the flip side, though, Britain losing on the continent, but still making fabulous gains (I agree with alexmilman) is largely the same as OTL, where Britain was willing to abandon it's allies. No one is going to want an ally that put the bulk of it's emphasis on making colonial gains and wasn't much help (aside from financial) on the continent.

But this would be nothing unique both before and after the 7YW: England/Britain was doing this regularly and rarely was running out of the allies. To a great degree this was because trade with it was important for many continental states and because most of these states had been doing similar things as well.

As for the colonial part of the equation, who would be envious about the British acquisitions? Austria, Russia and Prussia were not colonial states and were not actively looking for the overseas possessions (well, Russia was but this was in a corner that was of no serious interest to anybody including Russia. 🤪

Why would it matter for them that few colonies changed the owner? At least in the case of Russia trade with France was negligible comparing to one with Britain. Probably Prussia was in approximately the same bandwagon because France was exporting mostly the luxury items and buying little.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

On the flip side, though, Britain losing on the continent, but still making fabulous gains (I agree with alexmilman) is largely the same as OTL, where Britain was willing to abandon it's allies. No one is going to want an ally that put the bulk of it's emphasis on making colonial gains and wasn't much help (aside from financial) on the continent.

Well, financial help isn't to be underestimated -- "The sinews of war are infinite money", and all that. But even if Britain doesn't have any powers actively fighting on its behalf, simply making a few OTL belligerents opt for neutrality instead could make enough difference for the war to at least end in a compromise peace.

 

[unprincipled peter]

But this would be nothing unique both before and after the 7YW: England/Britain was doing this regularly and rarely was running out of the allies. To a great degree this was because trade with it was important for many continental states and because most of these states had been doing similar things as well.

As for the colonial part of the equation, who would be envious about the British acquisitions? Austria, Russia and Prussia were not colonial states and were not actively looking for the overseas possessions (well, Russia was but this was in a corner that was of no serious interest to anybody including Russia. 🤪

Why would it matter for them that few colonies changed the owner? At least in the case of Russia trade with France was negligible comparing to one with Britain. Probably Prussia was in approximately the same bandwagon because France was exporting mostly the luxury items and buying little.

Rather than envy, I think it would be anger that Britain spent money and ended up with what they wanted, while her allies lost, and had to give up stuff (like Silesia). Britain did lose on the aim of balance of power on the continent, but the glaring defect in the alliance is that Britain would be seen as nothing more than a financial assist. Money is essential, but the tone would be that Britain didn't do more.
Bottom line, IMO is that win as OTL, or lose as in TTL, no one is going to be eager to help Britain if the American Revolution still happens. Britain would be seen as more interested in her colonies than putting men into the fray on the continent. Sure she can find alliances, but those allies would not see anything going on in the colonies as being their concern. It's OTL either way.

 

[Socrates]

One potential butterfly: if Britain is technically on the losing side during the war (even if it still gets to keep all the French colonies it took IOTL), the rest of Europe might not fear it as a potential hegemon, meaning that the UK might have an easier time finding allies (or at least stopping other countries declaring war on it) if an American Revolution analogue occurs.

Britain will not be technically on the losing side. The war in the east was a separate war to the west. I don't even believe Britain was technically at war with Austria or Russia. The peaces were certainly concluded separately. The coalition wars with group peace deals was mainly a post-Napoleonic thing.

 

[Socrates]

Austria is getting Silesia back. Austrian ability to unite Germany is quite limited by a combination of the religious factor, relatively weak army and geopolitical considerations (France, Russia and Britain would oppose it). With this success, chances are that MT is not looking for the 1st Partition.

Russia most probably retains Eastern Prussia. If the peace concluded while EI is still alive, it would be difficult for PIII to reverse this act. Most probably, Russia also annexes Courland to improve connection with a new territory. With the EP being lost, Fritz does not have a reason for advocating the 1st Partition. However, Russia may end up with annexation of the Right Bank Ukraine due to the logistical considerations of the Ottoman war(s).

France still losing most of its colonies: there is no serious leverage to force Britain to return them. Would threat to Hannover be enough of a bargain chip? I’m not sure. Perhaps some of the lost territories could be regained but hardly all. Anyway, the French colonial models both in the Americas and in India were much less robust than the British ones and in the North America population of the French colonies was too small to stand up to the British demographic pressure in a long run. AFAIK, by the time of the 7YW France did not have any plans for expansion in Europe so it is getting nothing. Unless it is unexpectedly important in the terms of contributing to the victory, it can’t even expect getting Austrian Netherlands as a gratitude for helping to get Silesia back. The big debt is still there and could not be paid off by getting contribution from Prussia. The only “gains” are in the lesser territorial losses. Are the French still defeated at Rossbach? If they are, then there is no military glory as a consolation prize.

Britain is in approximately the same position as in OTL: their trade links with Russia were not broken during the 7YW and neither France nor Austria can replace it economically on the continent.

This is 100% correct. I kept reading finding something to nitpick but I agree with every line

In OTL, the British-Bourbon peace deal was actually incredibly favorable to the French and Spanish as George III and Bute were worried about Pitt amassing too much political power at home. Contrary to myth, they actually did know Manila was taken and gave it back without any concession in return. Cuba was ludicrously given back in return for keeping Florida, which was an insane trade - Cuba was the most valuable territory in the Americas and Spain was desperate to get the island returned. Guadeloupe for Canada was already a favorable deal for the French, and the Brits even allowed the French to keep the Canadian fisheries, which Pitt was determined to prevent before he was pushed aside.

So in-short, the peace deal in OTL was already a "Brits sue for peace" deal. Can't see it changing much.

 

[Socrates]

But this would be nothing unique both before and after the 7YW: England/Britain was doing this regularly and rarely was running out of the allies. To a great degree this was because trade with it was important for many continental states and because most of these states had been doing similar things as well.

This was actually an internal political division in Britain. The Whigs understood grand strategy while the Tories had naive views about defeating enemies at sea alone. In both the War of the Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War, it was Tories coming to power that betrayed British allies. Interestingly, Pitt mischievously flipped from one camp to the other, bemoaning subsidies and continental entanglements in opposition before expanding them in office.

 

[Socrates]

Russia most probably retains Eastern Prussia. If the peace concluded while EI is still alive, it would be difficult for PIII to reverse this act. Most probably, Russia also annexes Courland to improve connection with a new territory. With the EP being lost, Fritz does not have a reason for advocating the 1st Partition. However, Russia may end up with annexation of the Right Bank Ukraine due to the logistical considerations of the Ottoman war(s).

A bunch of questions for you on this:-

1) How does a Courland annexation actually happen? Russia just announces it, invades, and nobody else does anything?
2) How does Poland react to that? Surely they can't just meekly swallow this happening or they will have a public revolt on their hand?
3) On the other hand, if they try to fight, they are going to get steamrolled. What would Austria do?
4) Is Courland enough to ensure territorial integrity? It is an odd shape and doesn't actually really join up with East Prussia. Could you see other land being taken to smooth it out? E.g. Livonia, Samogitia
5) How would this place be organized? A new Baltic Duchy with Germans brought in as a ruling class? I can imagine Peter III wanting to do that.
6) How do you imagine the logistics working so right bank Ukraine is annexed?
7) How would Ukraine organized? Just annexed as a new governorate?
8) If these annexations just happen without fights, is the long-term destiny of the rest of the PLC just gradual annexations by Russia? I can't see anyone else strong enough to stop it. The Habsburgs are only going to decline in relative power over the 1800s.
9) This pretty much guarantees the Vienna-Paris alliance continues long-term, as they will both be shit-scared of the Russian behemoth
10) Also helps Vienna stoke German pride and nationalism against the foreign menace.

 

[alexmilman]

Rather than envy, I think it would be anger that Britain spent money and ended up with what they wanted, while her allies lost, and had to give up stuff (like Silesia). Britain did lose on the aim of balance of power on the continent, but the glaring defect in the alliance is that Britain would be seen as nothing more than a financial assist. Money is essential, but the tone would be that Britain didn't do more.
Bottom line, IMO is that win as OTL, or lose as in TTL, no one is going to be eager to help Britain if the American Revolution still happens. Britain would be seen as more interested in her colonies than putting men into the fray on the continent. Sure she can find alliances, but those allies would not see anything going on in the colonies as being their concern. It's OTL either way.

At least as long as one of the major coalition members (and according to the OP one of two that really won a war) was involved, (a) I’m not sure that Russia was even at war with Britain and (b) in OTL CII refused to help the Brits against colonials (she was offered Majorca as a payment but did not take a bite). So it is pretty much as you said it would be. Neither Prussia nor Austria were in the picture either. So there is no difference in that regard.

 

[alexmilman]

A bunch of questions for you on this:-

1) How does a Courland annexation actually happen? Russia just announces it, invades, and nobody else does anything?
2) How does Poland react to that? Surely they can't just meekly swallow this happening or they will have a public revolt on their hand?
3) On the other hand, if they try to fight, they are going to get steamrolled. What would Austria do?
4) Is Courland enough to ensure territorial integrity? It is an odd shape and doesn't actually really join up with East Prussia. Could you see other land being taken to smooth it out? E.g. Livonia, Samogitia
5) How would this place be organized? A new Baltic Duchy with Germans brought in as a ruling class? I can imagine Peter III wanting to do that.
6) How do you imagine the logistics working so right bank Ukraine is annexed?
7) How would Ukraine organized? Just annexed as a new governorate?
8) If these annexations just happen without fights, is the long-term destiny of the rest of the PLC just gradual annexations by Russia? I can't see anyone else strong enough to stop it. The Habsburgs are only going to decline in relative power over the 1800s.
9) This pretty much guarantees the Vienna-Paris alliance continues long-term, as they will both be shit-scared of the Russian behemoth
10) Also helps Vienna stoke German pride and nationalism against the foreign menace.

In 1795 the last Duke of Courland ceded it to the Russian Empire as a part of the 3rd Partition and that was it. Taking into an account that we’ll before that time Russia was appointing the dukes and even sent one of them into an exile this was quite simple.
The Duchy became Governorate of Courland and Semigalia. Until the late XIX it was governed by the local German Baltic nobility. Which was also the case with the Baltic provinces acquired after the GNW: Russian government was appointing the governors and kept troops there but the local administration was i; the hands of the “natives”. The cities, at least the major ones, retained the Magdeburg Law.

Of course, after the 7YW the PLC was still around but nobody would bother with asking their opinion and permission: during the war Russia used the PLC territory for moving the troops, creating supply bases and pretty much everything else it needed. If the East Prussia goes to Russia, a little gap between it and Courland would be ignored as it was ignored during the war. If it is deemed necessary, the “corridor” is annexed as well but there would be no real need to do so because the PLC sovereignty was not respected. The East Prussia would be governed using the same Baltic model: its estates already swore legience to Empress Elizabeth and were under the Russian control during most of the war.

Austria would not do anything against this because it could not: even the successful war would not allow it to start a new war with Russia.

Not sure about the partitions scenario but we can assume that the first one may happen ahead of the schedule if Austria wants a greater “compensation”. In that regard PIII is a wild card, taking into an account his adoration of Old Fritz (but would he be able to reverse the peace conditions? I’m not sure). In OTL CII agreed to the 1st Partition due to the pressure from both Prussia and Austria. In this TL Prussia is not a significant factor and I’m not sure if Austrian pressure is enough even if CII is still busy trying to settle peace conditions with the Ottomans. OTOH, possession of the Right Bank Ukraine could be useful in a war against the Ottomans so we may guess in any direction. If annexed, this territory would be handled along the OTL lines by creating the new governorates.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

They can't take as much, but Britain has still kicked French India's ass right? And New France was doomed from the start given its small population

About New France, it wasn't as smooth as many think, the french actually had a lot of good chances to at the very least survive 'til the end of the war and in the end, the blame of the conquest of Canada wasn't that the canadien population was too low (tho it made a part, if it was indeed higher you could see some number-powered french defeats like (1759) Carillon, (1758) Fort Ligonier plus the subsequent fall of Fort Duquesne and (1758) Fort Frontenac being reverted), the main reason was the french lack of capacity to maintain sea connection with New France, and lack of capacity to make the sea connection worth. Like, the defeats in 1758-59 can be blamed on the french for trying to distract the british from New France instead of actually supplying the damn colony with soldiers and supplies, this include Louisbourg, the french had a fleet in Louisbourg and made nothing of value with it beyond sending some ships to the british, c'mon, the british just managed to fight at the Plains of Abraham because the french don't even tried to send a fleet to oppose a british landing. My favorite one is the always forgotten counterattack in 1760, like, after the Plains of Abraham the canadiens weren't just...conquered and fuck this, non non non, Chevalier de Lévis actually managed to group up an army of 7.000 and defeat the british at the doors of Quebéc but couldn't recapture Quebéc proper because of french naval incompetence losing to the british as usual and forcing him to retreat (and after the british just said "fuck it, after that scare i will grant that you'll be out of existence" and grouped up 30.000 men to force Lévis' and the colony's surrender everything went clearly not good).

What i want to say is that, New France wasn't doomed, it was just the (metropolitan) french mistreating it so badly during the war that doomed it to fall, and even then, they could in fact, survive by its own, if you manage a french victory at the Plains of Abraham, New France is good since in 1760 they'll be actually receiving supplies (the main reason for Lévis attacking in the first place IOTL) and they can secure at least what they have as of now. IMO, if you manage to put anyone, like, ANYONE apart from Choiseul in the command of french strategy, you can get a better 1758-59 to New France.

 

[Socrates]

In 1795 the last Duke of Courland ceded it to the Russian Empire as a part of the 3rd Partition and that was it. Taking into an account that we’ll before that time Russia was appointing the dukes and even sent one of them into an exile this was quite simple.
The Duchy became Governorate of Courland and Semigalia. Until the late XIX it was governed by the local German Baltic nobility. Which was also the case with the Baltic provinces acquired after the GNW: Russian government was appointing the governors and kept troops there but the local administration was i; the hands of the “natives”. The cities, at least the major ones, retained the Magdeburg Law.
View attachment 535129
Of course, after the 7YW the PLC was still around but nobody would bother with asking their opinion and permission: during the war Russia used the PLC territory for moving the troops, creating supply bases and pretty much everything else it needed. If the East Prussia goes to Russia, a little gap between it and Courland would be ignored as it was ignored during the war. If it is deemed necessary, the “corridor” is annexed as well but there would be no real need to do so because the PLC sovereignty was not respected. The East Prussia would be governed using the same Baltic model: its estates already swore legience to Empress Elizabeth and were under the Russian control during most of the war.

Austria would not do anything against this because it could not: even the successful war would not allow it to start a new war with Russia.

Not sure about the partitions scenario but we can assume that the first one may happen ahead of the schedule if Austria wants a greater “compensation”. In that regard PIII is a wild card, taking into an account his adoration of Old Fritz (but would he be able to reverse the peace conditions? I’m not sure). In OTL CII agreed to the 1st Partition due to the pressure from both Prussia and Austria. In this TL Prussia is not a significant factor and I’m not sure if Austrian pressure is enough even if CII is still busy trying to settle peace conditions with the Ottomans. OTOH, possession of the Right Bank Ukraine could be useful in a war against the Ottomans so we may guess in any direction. If annexed, this territory would be handled along the OTL lines by creating the new governorates.

Ok - I get your point about no need to annex the place formally because it was already annexed de facto. However, I think history of geopolitics sees de facto things usually become de jure over time. So let's imagine we start with the Duchy of Courland annexed, plus the Duchy of Samogitia. We thus have five substantially Germanized Duchies on the Baltic shore, which provide a fair bit of trade wealth from the Baltic for Moscow. We also likely have Russian annexations in OTL Ukraine as they look to more tightly control the area in the fight with the Ottomans.

I agree with you that Peter III cannot overturn the peace. I think we can also assume Frederick the Great abdicates, and his son is on the throne, so the adoration there is not as much. Without the giving away of East Prussia, I think it's reasonable to believe Peter might last a bit longer on the Russian throne. Perhaps Catherine still tries to get rid of him, but the coup is unsuccessful as there are more Peter-supporters. Now where does Peter's Germanophilia get focused? Perhaps to the newly aggrandized empire of Joseph II, now the de facto leader of Germany, with Silesia reconquered and Bavaria likely to happen soon. I wonder what Joseph and Peter's relationship would be like.

 

[Socrates]

About New France, it wasn't as smooth as many think, the french actually had a lot of good chances to at the very least survive 'til the end of the war and in the end, the blame of the conquest of Canada wasn't that the canadien population was too low (tho it made a part, if it was indeed higher you could see some number-powered french defeats like (1759) Carillon, (1758) Fort Ligonier plus the subsequent fall of Fort Duquesne and (1758) Fort Frontenac being reverted), the main reason was the french lack of capacity to maintain sea connection with New France, and lack of capacity to make the sea connection worth. Like, the defeats in 1758-59 can be blamed on the french for trying to distract the british from New France instead of actually supplying the damn colony with soldiers and supplies, this include Louisbourg, the french had a fleet in Louisbourg and made nothing of value with it beyond sending some ships to the british, c'mon, the british just managed to fight at the Plains of Abraham because the french don't even tried to send a fleet to oppose a british landing. My favorite one is the always forgotten counterattack in 1760, like, after the Plains of Abraham the canadiens weren't just...conquered and fuck this, non non non, Chevalier de Lévis actually managed to group up an army of 7.000 and defeat the british at the doors of Quebéc but couldn't recapture Quebéc proper because of french naval incompetence losing to the british as usual and forcing him to retreat (and after the british just said "fuck it, after that scare i will grant that you'll be out of existence" and grouped up 30.000 men to force Lévis' and the colony's surrender everything went clearly not good).

What i want to say is that, New France wasn't doomed, it was just the (metropolitan) french mistreating it so badly during the war that doomed it to fall, and even then, they could in fact, survive by its own, if you manage a french victory at the Plains of Abraham, New France is good since in 1760 they'll be actually receiving supplies (the main reason for Lévis attacking in the first place IOTL) and they can secure at least what they have as of now. IMO, if you manage to put anyone, like, ANYONE apart from Choiseul in the command of french strategy, you can get a better 1758-59 to New France.

I take your point, but by the middle of the war the British had the entire French fleet either destroyed or shut into ports, and then went and did the same thing with the Spanish too. So even if the French do better in the battles you mention, the place is horrifically exposed by the end of the war, with Britain dominant on land and at sea in North America. It's not guaranteed to fall, but it is highly likely.