AHC/WI: French Win or Draw Seven Years War

As said above, the challenge is to get the French to retain at least a substantial amount of colonial lands/possesions in North America.

Bonus points if you can somehow get this to lead onto a different result in the Third Carnatic War.

First off, can Louisberg be retained & does that help stay in Canada?

Currently working on my own timeline for this right now. It can happen but it's very difficult to work out all the details.

First, have the British alienate all of the native Americans within their reac in North America. Send them packing for Quebec.

Second, have the French win the Battle of Hastenbeck by a much wider margin. Push the Electorate of Hanover out of the war decisively.

Third, ensure that the British leave inept governors in place that are constantly bickering with generals. Have governors run out on a rail due to bold French assaults against British towns like Albany, and make sure that it makes the papers back in London.

1) in the peace treaty, have Britain refuse to give up Martinique, so France keeps Canada. (OTL, they were given a choice, Martinique or Canada, and they chose one sugar island over vaste, vaste stretches of land.

2) require the colonies to supply the miltary forces with food andtransport (wagons) out of their own pockets. OTL, the British expeditions, into the Ohio valley at least, only managed to work when London payed for everything.

3) require militia forces to accept the draconian 'discipline' of the Regular Army. This guarantees 90+% desertion rates, and without locals, especially for scouting, the redcoats will be ambushed and cut to pieces all the time, not just some of the time.


Any of those three would work.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

1) in the peace treaty, have Britain refuse to give up Martinique, so France keeps Canada. (OTL, they were given a choice, Martinique or Canada, and they chose one sugar island over vaste, vaste stretches of land.

2) require the colonies to supply the miltary forces with food andtransport (wagons) out of their own pockets. OTL, the British expeditions, into the Ohio valley at least, only managed to work when London payed for everything.

3) require militia forces to accept the draconian 'discipline' of the Regular Army. This guarantees 90+% desertion rates, and without locals, especially for scouting, the redcoats will be ambushed and cut to pieces all the time, not just some of the time.


Any of those three would work.

Click to expand...

Any particular reason the French chose Martinique over Quebec? Was there any greater value there?

Nitpicking - it was Guadeloupe, not Martinique, that was on offer.

In the 18th century, sugar was one of the most valuable commodities and Guadeloupe was a major producer. Saint-Domingue (Haiti) was the world's richest colony for the same reason. Canada, on the other hand, produced mainly only furs for export, and was expensive to govern and defend. Its value would obviously become clearer later on, but at that time period it was definitely less lucrative for France.

I really wouldn't be too hard to hold French North America, with an addition 10,000 French professional soldiers. As things were the French were able to hold their own until the tide turned in 1758-1759. The British sent some fairly incompetent officers to the war front early on, and this of course helped the French. In addition, British settlers encroaching on Indian lands, won the French allies in the Ohio River Valley. The battle at Fort Carillon in July 1758 was a major French victory where French and Indian forces defeated a British-American force despite being outnumbered 5 to 1. Had Prussia been on France's side, enough French troops could have been diverted to New France to keep the British at bay and capture an important frontier settlement like Albany (which was seriously threatened in OTL).

In September 1757, Admiral Holbourne's fleet was badly damaged by a hurricane outside of Louisbourg harbour while the French ships were unscathed in the safety of the harbour. Had the French chased Holbourne's fleet he could have destroyed or captured 20 ships of the line with reinforcements effectively prevented troop reinforcements from arriving in America and given the French a chance to captured Albany and threaten New York.

Also, a Franco-Prussian alliance would have dramatically improved France's chances of victory in Europe as both countries had the largest and most effective armies on the continent. A continued Franco-Prussian alliance would have freed France from committing such a large number of troops to Europe.

The Austrian Netherlands can be overrun quickly, as the United Provinces contemporary sources seem to say that the government preferred to avoid war so that it could trade with both sides. In OTL the British requested Dutch assistance in the form of 6,000 troops on the continent, as per the Anglo-Dutch treaty, but this was refused. Also, the British began to intercept Dutch ships carrying naval stores to France from the Baltic throughout the war, angering the Dutch merchants, so more than likely the Dutch sit this one out.

If the Dutch remain neutral, Hanover and Brunswick will probably be mopped up by the French forces just as in OTL, leaving the Austrians having to face Prussia all alone.

The wildcard is of course Russia. Initially they were going to send troops through the Holy Roman Empire to assist in the defence of the United Provinces. However, these troops were to be subsidised by the British. If they're still a British ally, the French will have to contend with them. If they ally themselves with the British and Austrians against the French, this may draw the Swedes into the war.

As for Denmark, they were being paid a subsidy by the French to remain neutral. They still have the largest Baltic Navy and could close the Baltic off at Elsinore.

Shahrasayr said:

Any particular reason the French chose Martinique over Quebec? Was there any greater value there?

Click to expand...

Where, in Quebec?

Islands like Martinique enriched France. Quebec was just expensive to maintain.

IOTL, France didn't really lose the 7YW (it didn't win either, though). Hanging on to French North America wasn't really all that important to France, the real loss they felt was in Europe. So to answer your question: Just avoid the miracle of the House of Brandenburg 2.0, and France's enemy Prussia is beaten down. In exchange for more lenient terms, the British give up some of their conquests in America (probably going to be Quebec, Ohio and Lousiana are much more important to Britain and the colonies).

Caoster said:

People always make this mistake, assuming Brunswick would side with Hannover and not Prussia. Considering the Brunswick Dukes and Duchesses had all married the Hohenzollerns and were officers in their army, and had fought for Prussia prior to the diplomatic revolution AGAINST Britain, why would they switch sides to Britain in a world where Prussia stays allied to France?

Click to expand...

British did lavish subsidies on the Duke of Brunswick throughout the war, they were as follows:
1759 £30,494
1760 £93,338
1761 £57,798
1762 £68,008
1763 £20,079 + £38,871
1764 £48,901

£357,489, or roughly 3 tons of gold in weight. Does that answer your question?

Caoster said:

You seem to be missing the point. The British did this because Brunswick was allied with Hannover THRU their alliance with Prussia. If Prussia never becomes allied with Hannover and Britain, then neither does Brunswick.

E.G The War of Austrian Succession. Brunswick fought AGAINST Hannover and Britain.

Brunswick was Prussia's ally, first and foremost. Everything else came through that relationship. When Prussia went through the Diplomatic Revolution, they took Brunswick with them.

Click to expand...

I do concede that they most likely would have gone along with Prussia, however they would still be reliant on subsidies, more than likely French (as was Prussia). Also, Britain was trying to actively recruit as many German principalities to fight against the French. Britain suffered from a dearth of soldiers (and bringing them to Britain itself and America). In OTL they paid generous subsidies to Prussia, Hanover, and Hesse, the latter being especially important to raise troops. However, they also paid subsidies to Bavaria and Sweden to keep their neutrality in 1757. In addition, they granted Russia £100,000 in 1757. They offered a subsidy to Denmark to protect Hanover, but they were rebuffed. So without Brunswick, Hanover is even more screwed.

Caoster said:

In a world without the diplomatic revolution, Prussia can mop the floor with Hanover and Austria by themselves. Hanover was a paper tiger. The Seven Years war is going to be very one sided on the continent.



Prussia was able to handle Sweden, Austria, Russia, and France on the continent nearly single-handedly. The British Armies of Observation never amount anything like what the French put into the field against Prussia.

In this scenario, you take the small British continental army away and British subsidies, and replace them with a massively larger French force and subsidy, and watch how far Prussia can go.

Click to expand...

This is true, France subsidised Austria in OTL with around 62.5 million livres or £4,687,500, Britain gave Prussia £3,800,000 in subsidies so the latter would have been a cheaper ally for France.

Caoster said:

Yes, everyone in the war got either French or British subsidies. It was just a matter of picking sides.

Sweden is actually the most interesting wildcard in this situation. They are very pro Russia in this period. I could see compelling arguments for them going on either side. If they go against a Prussia/France, they are toast and lose the remaining bit of Pomerania 50 years early.

The diplomatic revolution was a mistake for everyone involved except Britain. Britain traded up, everyone else traded down.

Click to expand...

It seems that by this time Sweden was weary of war, and to that end in they concluded a convention with Denmark in an effort to prevent any power from controlling the Baltic. Sweden was invited to join the Austro-Russian alliance in February 1757, being promissed Prussian territory in Pomerania. In Marh they did sign a convention with France and Austria where in exchange for 20,000 Swedish troops they were promised territory in Pomerania and East Prussia.

It appears that Swedish diplomats never thought they had a chance to hold onto their territorial gains made at the expense of Prussia, and saw Russian expansion into the Baltic as the greatest threat, hence the agreement with Denmark.

Maybe if Lagos and Quiberon Bay hadn't gone quite so badly and the French were able to launch their invasion of Britain? Even if the invasion is a failure the British would probably be less willing to deploy troops to the colonies giving France a better chance in colonial matters.

Caoster said:

I'm pretty much convinced that an alt Seven Years War with Prussia/France/Brunswick against Britain/Hanover/Austria/Russia is the war that France has been waiting for.

Finally, France would be able to mostly hand off the continental theater to a competent ally, and for once be able to focus on the British without major distractions on the continent. It would be their best chance to try to meet the English on something approaching even footing. They would still take a beating, the English were at their relative peak, but almost anything would be better than OTL for them.

Click to expand...

On the other hand the war in OTL went very badly for the English until 1758. The fall of Menorca in May 1756 was a disaster and the surrender of Hanover at Kloserzeven in November 1757, were major blows to Britain. The failed raid at Rochefort in September 1757 had cost the British £1 million pounds and was a failure as well.

In America the failure of the Braddock Expedition in 1755 and later the Forbes expedition in 1758, led to raids against the frontier settlements Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania by France's indigenous allies. This was followed by victories at Fort Carillon and Fort Duquesne. It appears that the failure of the Braddock expedition led to an estimated 3,000 Indians coming from West of the Mississippi to join the French in pillaging English settlements.

Looking at the political cartoons and commentary of the day the public became disaffected with the war and morale seems to have been very bad in the colonies in America, due to attacks on frontier settlements by Indians in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

In OTL, the French wanted the British to think that they were planning an invasion of the British Isles, and although some plans were drawn up, it seems that the fear was enough to force parliament into only allowing a limited number of British troops to serve overseas.

Without having to deal with France, Prussia (and Sweden) can easily defeat Austria and Russia by 1757-1758. More than likely a peace deal would be hammered out. In addition, France will commit a larger number of troops to America, seeing that it no longer has to assist Austria against Prussia. If France sent even another 10,000 troops to New France, as the Duc of Choiseul had suggested, then the balance would have been overwhelmingly in their favour.

Caoster said:

In a world without the diplomatic revolution, Prussia can mop the floor with Hanover and Austria by themselves. Hanover was a paper tiger. The Seven Years war is going to be very one sided on the continent.

Click to expand...

Austrian armies were not a paper tiger nor inferior to Prussian armies. OTL Austria was successful against Prussia in the Seven Years War, winning several battles against Prussia including a couple with Frederick the Great at the head. Prussophiles like to point to the Battle of Leuthen in which they triumphed against Austria and against 2:1 odds. I counter-point to Battle of Domstadl in which Austria triumphed over Prussia and against 2.5:1 odds. So, man for man, Prussian armies were not better than any other army in Europe. Sweden and Russia also did fine against Prussia.

The French armies performed poorly in the Seven Years War and let Austria down. Apart from losing to Prussia at Rossbach, they also had several embarrassing defeats to the Hanover-Brunswick-British armies led by Ferdinand. If the French armies had done their jobs, Prussia wouldn't last past Year 2 of the 7YW.

So, a Prussian-French alliance would not steamroll over an Austrian-Russian one in the 7YW. The former could lose since the French armies were bad at the time. The best armies at the time was the Prussian and Austrian, but Austria would have Russia on side and so would beat Prussia-France.

Mike said:

Austrian armies were not a paper tiger nor inferior to Prussian armies. OTL Austria was successful against Prussia in the Seven Years War, winning several battles against Prussia including a couple with Frederick the Great at the head. Prussophiles like to point to the Battle of Leuthen in which they triumphed against Austria and against 2:1 odds. I counter-point to Battle of Domstadl in which Austria triumphed over Prussia and against 2.5:1 odds. So, man for man, Prussian armies were not better than any other army in Europe. Sweden and Russia also did fine against Prussia.

The French armies performed poorly in the Seven Years War and let Austria down. Apart from losing to Prussia at Rossbach, they also had several embarrassing defeats to the Hanover-Brunswick-British armies led by Ferdinand. If the French armies had done their jobs, Prussia wouldn't last past Year 2 of the 7YW.

So, a Prussian-French alliance would not steamroll over an Austrian-Russian one in the 7YW. The former could lose since the French armies were bad at the time. The best armies at the time was the Prussian and Austrian, but Austria would have Russia on side and so would beat Prussia-France.

Click to expand...

Austria did have Russia on their side until 1762. In the scenario we proposed Austria would be allied with Great Britain and Hanover on their side instead of France. That would mean that Prussia would not have to fight France and Sweden (the latter would free up at least 20,000 troops they sent to defend against Pomerania.

Though Domstadl was an Austrian victory, it was not nearly as impressive as the Prussian victories at Rossbach or Leuthen. At Rossbach the Prussians were outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 and managed to inflict casualties of 5,000 and captured another 5,000 men. At Leuthen too they were outnumbered 2:1 and outgunned but inflicted 10,000 casualties and captured another 12,000 Austrians. By January of 1758, the Austrians had lost not only a large number of troops, but a large number of officers.

Rather than undoing the diplomatic revolution, wouldn't it be easier to avoid the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg and just either let Elizabeth live a few years longer, or kill off Peter before he can become Peter III? Prussia was kind of doomed until Peter III decided to bail them out.

Force the British to give up some of their colonial conquests in exchange for keeping anything on the continent.

Viriato said:

Austria did have Russia on their side until 1762. In the scenario we proposed Austria would be allied with Great Britain and Hanover on their side instead of France. That would mean that Prussia would not have to fight France and Sweden (the latter would free up at least 20,000 troops they sent to defend against Pomerania.

Click to expand...

20,000 extra troops for Prussia would not have made a difference against Austria. The Swedish army was small and therefore ineffective. Prussia basically ignored Sweden and concentrated on Austria and later Russia. It is interesting to note that the Swedish army fought the Prussians sent against them to a standstill despite being outnumbered.

Likewise, apart from Rossbach Prussia ignored France throughout the war. Rossbach only occured because the French army happened to be passing by Frederick's position; Frederick then took the opportunity to surprise it and destroy it before going back to attacking Austria. It was Ferdinand and his Hanoverian-Brunswick-British army that was assigned to attack the French armies and thereby protect Prussia's western flank. Ferdinand did it masterfully, his outnumbered army repeatedly defeated the French throughout the war enable Prussia to focus on Austria and later Russia too.

Viriato said:

Though Domstadl was an Austrian victory, it was not nearly as impressive as the Prussian victories at Rossbach or Leuthen. At Rossbach the Prussians were outnumbered nearly 2 to 1 and managed to inflict casualties of 5,000 and captured another 5,000 men. At Leuthen too they were outnumbered 2:1 and outgunned but inflicted 10,000 casualties and captured another 12,000 Austrians. By January of 1758, the Austrians had lost not only a large number of troops, but a large number of officers.

Click to expand...

By the end of 1758, Prussia suffered worse, losing its best officers and soldiers while Austria rebuilt its army. After 1758 Frederick had to raise recruits for his army and spent the rest of the war on the defensive.

Caoster said:

None of this addresses the real reason that Prussia would win. Without France or Swedish intervention, Prussia would not have give up his focus on Austria. No French invasion of Saxony in the summer of 1757 means Frederick doesn't have to keep marching and counter marching against France and Austria. He can focus on Austria.

Click to expand...

Prussia never gave up his focus on Austria. It ignored France, Sweden and, at times, even Russia in order to deal with Austria.

Prussia started the war by attacking neutral Saxony and surprising Austria who were not prepared for war yet. After defeating Saxony and incorporating its army and treasury to the Prussian war effort, it attacked Austria and only had limited, bloody, initial success before being driven back. In 1757, it attacked Austria again, and again only having the same limited, bloody, initial success. Austria again drove back Prussia with even greater effectiveness that Prussia nearly lost then. By the end of 1757, Russia joined in, attacking Eastern Prussia and forcing Frederick to gamble everything at Leuthen which saved his army for the moment. At 1758, Prussia tried again to attack Austria with the same story happening before the end of the year. After 1758 Prussia was so depleted that it had to spend the rest of the war on the defensive.

So, Prussia would not have steamrolled over its enemies if the alliances had been Prussia-France versus Austria-Russia-Britain. For starters, the war would have began differently (if it happened at all) with Austria better prepared because France would never have allowed Prussia to attack Saxony unprovoked because it wanted peace in order to protect its overseas colonies from Britain. In OTL, Britain turned a blind eye to Prussia's aggression because it was its only major ally on the Continent and because it wanted war in order to get France's overseas colonies. And the French armies were bad at the time and would not have helped Prussia (and possibly hindered it) just like it didn't help Austria OTL.

You'd better change the course of the end of the war of austrian succession. This was more decisive.

Have the french retain, as they could if Louis XV had been more clever, the austrian Netherlands and the british stronghold of Madras in India and you literally change the course of History.

You then have a strong probability of bankrupting the british east indies company and destroy the foundations on which England built the lasting superiority of the City, the Royal Navy and of british trade overseas : the enormous Indian resources that were definitly conquered 10/15 years later.

The french could then have become the dominant power in India : which they were in the way of achieving before Louis XV (him again) disgraced Dupleix.

And if so, the UK will not care starting a new war in America in 1754 and you can have the french organize mass immigration in its huge american possessions.