The Seven Years War was a watershed moment in European history, cementing the rise of powers like Prussia and Britain while starting France down the death spiral that would go on until the Revolution. OTL, however, the territorial exchanges were all colonial, in part due to Russia and Sweden (the countries who had lands to take in Europe) left the war early.
Now, what if then, Peter III is slightly less of a prussiaboo, or simply doesn't come to power until the war was already over (Elizabeth was only 52, her survival isn't unlikely), meaning no miracle of the House of Brandenburg. Spain just has better luck in Portugal in general. the French coalition is victorious on the mainland, if not abroad. what does this mean for the powers victorious and not?
 
Prussia as a power is strangled in its Crib, the English have to trade some of their colonial gains back to get Hanover back for their king.i never understood why Peter gets so much hate (other than the large quantities of Catherine the greats propaganda that made him look bad) going to war with Prussia in hopes of getting land to trade to Poland in exchange for land you actually want was the real dumb gambit, if Peter III lived and his plans even came close to fruition it would be considered a master stroke.
He basically puppetized Prussia and had gained their support in future endeavours.
 
Prussia as a power is strangled in its Crib, the English have to trade some of their colonial gains back to get Hanover back for their king.i never understood why Peter gets so much hate (other than the large quantities of Catherine the greats propaganda that made him look bad) going to war with Prussia in hopes of getting land to trade to Poland in exchange for land you actually want was the real dumb gambit, if Peter III lived and his plans even came close to fruition it would be considered a master stroke.
He basically puppetized Prussia and had gained their support in future endeavours.
Actually, the reasoning of Elizabeth’s cabinet was even more convoluted. The primary goal as stated in memorandum was to weaken Prussia to such a degree that it will not allow it in the future to contest Russian influence in the PLC. PLC was going to receive Eastern Prussia as a compensation for allowing the Russian troops to march through its territory. Russian compensation at the Polish expense is vaguely defined and seemingly includes a false notion that PLC has an access to the Black Sea. Needless to say that in the existing situation Polish consent was not really required and that the Russian troops felt themselves free not just to march through the PLC territory but also to use it as a base and a source of food supplies (optimistically, I’d assume that some payment to the supplies owners had been happening). It is also worth noticing that as soon as East Prussia was occupied an idea of giving it to the PLC died and the local population was forced to swear loyalty to EI. So it was not just a dumb gambit but a dumb improvisation in a process without any clear goal in mind. If EI really wanted some specific piece of the Polish land, a direct occupation (even with a war) would be simpler and less expensive.

And while, as you said, PIII basically made Prussia dependent on Russia his widow squandered this dependency and caved to the Prussian demands which led to the 1st Partition. And she ended up as “Great”.
 
Last edited:
What sort of territory will france still control if Britain has to hand over colonies in order to regain Hanover for George?
I’d imagine France keeps the territory of *the Canadas/*United Province of Canada since the future 1783 USA borders were pretty well-held by then and all but empty of Europeans. Likely France keeps Senegal, possibly some (but not all) of its Indian sphere of influence. Britain still wins the colonial sphere enough to count but not the OTL blowout. India and Canada at least can be fully taken in the future anyway.
 
The Seven Years War was a watershed moment in European history, cementing the rise of powers like Prussia and Britain while starting France down the death spiral that would go on until the Revolution. OTL, however, the territorial exchanges were all colonial, in part due to Russia and Sweden (the countries who had lands to take in Europe) left the war early.
Now, what if then, Peter III is slightly less of a prussiaboo, or simply doesn't come to power until the war was already over (Elizabeth was only 52, her survival isn't unlikely), meaning no miracle of the House of Brandenburg. Spain just has better luck in Portugal in general. the French coalition is victorious on the mainland, if not abroad. what does this mean for the powers victorious and not?
Actually, Russian active participation in the war was pretty much over when Elizabeth was still alive. Russian commander-in-chief, Buturlin, held his troops on PLC territory and ignored orders from St-Petersburg to act offensively. The only offensive operation was siege of Kolberg in Pomerania which would allow supply of the Russian troops by the sea. Cooperation with the Austrians had been pretty much broken even earlier: Russian c-in-c, Saltykov, was accusing them of trying to win a war by the Russian hands while not being able to provide an adequate supply of the Russian troops.

So for your scenario you would need different people in charge both in Austrian and Russian army and a number of some other things.

OTOH, the main winner of your OP, France, seems to be irrelevant in your scenario. How about more competent leadership on all levels and avoidance of the shameful defeats like at Rossbach? Even a victorious Russian army would not occupy Hanover but victorious French army could thus eventually forcing return of at least some of the lost colonies.
 
OTOH, the main winner of your OP, France, seems to be irrelevant in your scenario.
I just thought I knew more about the other combatants and why they failed in Europe- Russia and Sweden pulling out early (Sweden due to losing access to Russia to invade Prussia with), and the fact that Spain never seems capable of invading Portugal when France needs them to.

I’d imagine France keeps the territory of *the Canadas/*United Province of Canada since the future 1783 USA borders were pretty well-held by then and all but empty of Europeans. Likely France keeps Senegal, possibly some (but not all) of its Indian sphere of influence. Britain still wins the colonial sphere enough to count but not the OTL blowout. India and Canada at least can be fully taken in the future anyway.
Would America still revolt ya think? I imagine there's still some concessions in Louisiana (if not everything- I can't see France giving up New Orleans if they're in a position to negotiate) and the taxes will still increase; but on the other hand France is right on their doorstep ttl
 
Didn't Prussia barely make it out of the war alive - Lucky to get back to status quo? I'd say their rise started in the War of Austrian Succession, grabbing Silesia, and then 7YW cemented possession, when Austria couldn't take it back.

Meanwhile, France was on a downward spiral from the 9YW, with the WoAS being an exception, sort of (They went heavy into debt, but made no gains). They lost their navy in 9YW, then did little to rebuild it til after 7YW. WoAS set the stage for France being weakened enough for Britain to challenge them for world hegemony.

France took Hanover, then stupidly released it instead of holding it to exchange for colonial territory lost (concept which is always touted as standard procedure/strategy).

IF the tables are turned in 7YW, though, Britain does not gain hegemony in India, nor does it gain half the North American continent. Spain, which would have been well advised to stay out of 7YW unless France was winning, would not gain much. They wouldn't be able to keep Portugal, or much of the Portuguese colonial sphere. Neither France nor Spain would be looking to knock Britain down a peg, so they unlikely get into a hot war if the American Revolution still breaks out. IF France/Spain win early (before the sun sets on 1759), has Britain actually taken much from them? In NA, isn't Acadia/Nova Scotia the only thing taken? Not sure about India, but I don't think they took much in the Caribbean by then. One would think that Austria regains Silesia, putting an end to Prussia as much of a power.
 
Would America still revolt ya think? I imagine there's still some concessions in Louisiana (if not everything- I can't see France giving up New Orleans if they're in a position to negotiate) and the taxes will still increase; but on the other hand France is right on their doorstep ttl
Possibly. American rangers and general troops were a valuable contribution to the western theater that took Forts Duquesne, Detroit, and Niagara and southwards and so could still point out they deserved a share of representation if taxed. If they don't revolt, then western colonies have probably been formed - your Transylvanias, Vandalias, Charlotinas, New Waleses, etc. - not just as a safety valve for discontent but also to counter French communications if it kept Louisiana and take down French-allied Amerindians. Canada is definitely something to consider - but between existing colonies, new western colonies, and Britain decisively conquering Ile-Royal and mainland Acadia/*New Brunswick and so holding the sea lane INTO Canada which in many ways is as good as actually holding it - the threat is quite lessened.

If they do revolt, no doubt they'd be able to focus more troops on defending themselves or even decisively bringing Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island into the Revolutionary War since they won't be attacking Canada in TTL. Or even an irony they get the full support of *Quebec in the Revolution after all, in their own way. The French Navy is at a major upswing in the time of the American Revolution and so could possibly-to-probably-get supplies to Canada and America despite Britain technically controlling the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
IF France/Spain win early (before the sun sets on 1759), has Britain actually taken much from them? In NA, isn't Acadia/Nova Scotia the only thing taken?
Acadia's remainder and Ile-Royal/Cape Breton Island were conquered by 1758, and Fort Duquesne and if I remember right, Niagara were conquered by 1759 - the French hold on the future *Northwest/Southwest Territories had collapsed by Detroit's fall in 1760 and was why the British could finally focus on a death blow to the St. Lawrence valley. It's why beyond it being (relatively) empty of European settlers any 7YW that sees France keeping "Canada" I would argue still cedes what would become the future 1783 USA borders with all of the Maritimes - the western lands were already taken and cheap to trade off and Britain would cling to total control of the sea lane into Canada for dear life as a valuable prize.
 
Prussia as a power is strangled in its Crib, the English have to trade some of their colonial gains back to get Hanover back for their king.i never understood why Peter gets so much hate (other than the large quantities of Catherine the greats propaganda that made him look bad) going to war with Prussia in hopes of getting land to trade to Poland in exchange for land you actually want was the real dumb gambit, if Peter III lived and his plans even came close to fruition it would be considered a master stroke.
He basically puppetized Prussia and had gained their support in future endeavours.

Can't see Parliament accepting the trade of British colonies so that the King's other country can be restored.
 
Acadia's remainder and Ile-Royal/Cape Breton Island were conquered by 1758, and Fort Duquesne and if I remember right, Niagara were conquered by 1759 - the French hold on the future *Northwest/Southwest Territories had collapsed by Detroit's fall in 1760 and was why the British could finally focus on a death blow to the St. Lawrence valley.
Québec was captured in September 1759, Montréal one year later and then finally Detroit in November 1760.

There wasn’t really a consistent plan of conquest. But from Louisbourg (1758) onward, the British forces were usually successful whereas up to that point they had had only mixed results.
 
Québec was captured in September 1759, Montréal one year later and then finally Detroit in November 1760.

There wasn’t really a consistent plan of conquest. But from Louisbourg (1758) onward, the British forces were usually successful whereas up to that point they had had only mixed results.
Hey, I'll cop to mixing up the timeline and route, apologies!

You're also right on there not being a deliberate plan, but the overall situation they ended up in of taking and holding Louisbourg and most of the eastern Louisiana forts is far too good a situation to simply give up. I can easily see the 1783 boundary lines drawn up for 1763 since the Rainy River, Great Lakes, lowest St. Lawrence River, Adirondacks and Appalachians are fantastic and obvious borders, and to hem in Canada with fresh land to colonize after New France hemmed up the British colonies would sate the Americans very, very much. Detroit's the biggest settlement the French would have to give up and I don't remember if it even hit a thousand people yet by 1763.
 
Can't see Parliament accepting the trade of British colonies so that the King's other country can be restored.
But French India went, IIRC, to the EIC, not to the British Crown so this should not be a problem. OTOH parts in the NA are falling into category you described. A successful expansion in India may be more profitable for France than its colonies in NA and income from the trade may remove some of the financial problems.
 
But French India went, IIRC, to the EIC, not to the British Crown so this should not be a problem. OTOH parts in the NA are falling into category you described. A successful expansion in India may be more profitable for France than its colonies in NA and income from the trade may remove some of the financial problems.

French India was conquered by the EIC. Besides it was seen as "British" in a way that Hannover was not.
 
French India was conquered by the EIC. Besides it was seen as "British" in a way that Hannover was not.
Taking into an account the timing of its conquest, I doubt that the Brits had enough time to develop the truly proprietary feelings to this specific territory. I agree with the Hanover part but after all Britain was seemingly quite attached to it even after the 7YW.
 
Top