France Beats England in French&Indian Wars, What Happens?

[ralph124c]

Suppose France emerged as the victor, and takes over the Western Hemisphere from England.
England loses its empire, and France becomes the dominant word power-would the USA exist today? Would the colonists eventually revolt against France?
If France displaced England, there probably would never have been napoleon, and no World Wars 1 and 2-French culture would have flooded the world, and England would be an insignificant country on the edge of Europe.
Would France have faced any other powers (like Germany), or would they still rule the world?

[Little Nemo]

It's difficult to see it happening the way you described. The reason England defeated France was because England was much more heavily committed to the Americas than France was. There were about 70,000 French colonists and over a million English colonists. There was no way that the French could have ruled over the English.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's difficult to see it happening the way you described. The reason England defeated France was because England was much more heavily committed to the Americas than France was. There were about 70,000 French colonists and over a million English colonists. There was no way that the French could have ruled over the English.

But could the French have won to the extent of keeping what they had, i.e, New France? And keeping the British bottled up east of the Appallachians?

[Simplicio]

Presumably we would've had a French Canada for at least a few more decades. Conceivably the US might've bought it along with the Louisiana purchase when Napoleon decided to bail on N. America, and we would've had a larger, politer United States today.

Also the US Revolution might've gone a lot easier if French allies of the colonists had had a base just N. of the border instead of the British (or perhaps not wanting to encourage a revolt close to its possessions, French would've refused to aid the colonists against the British, and we'd remain in the Empire for at least a few more decades.)

[Gorsnak]

You need to explain how you envisage the broader 7 Years War playing out. The results of the North American battles were just bargaining points in negotiating the Treaty of Paris.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Presumably we would've had a French Canada for at least a few more decades. Conceivably the US might've bought it along with the Louisiana purchase when Napoleon decided to bail on N. America, and we would've had a larger, politer United States today.

Also the US Revolution might've gone a lot easier if French allies of the colonists had had a base just N. of the border instead of the British (or perhaps not wanting to encourage a revolt close to its possessions, French would've refused to aid the colonists against the British, and we'd remain in the Empire for at least a few more decades.)

Nope. No Anglo-American victory in the French and Indian War, no American Revolution. A precondition of the Revolution was that the American colonies no longer needed the Crown's military protection from the French, so they saw no good reason they should pay the Crown taxes without representation any more.

No American Revolution, no French Revolution -- the latter happened when it did mainly because the cost of aiding the Americans in the former near-bankrupted the French Crown, Louis XVI found it necessary to call an Estates-General for the first time since 1614 to authorize new taxes, and things got out of hand from that point on -- culminating in the dictatorship of Napoleon. So, no Emperor Napoleon, either.

[kopek]

The people of DuQuesne and the surrounding area don't grow up to say "yniz"?


I believe the French would have inevitably lost to the British in a Round Two or Three and the French Revolution would still have happened although possibly a little while later. The interesting thing would have been how England would have dealt with the war debt after a loss and would that have sped or slowed the beginning of the American Revolution?

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's difficult to see it happening the way you described. The reason England defeated France was because England was much more heavily committed to the Americas than France was. There were about 70,000 French colonists and over a million English colonists. There was no way that the French could have ruled over the English.

Originally Posted by Gorsnak

You need to explain how you envisage the broader 7 Years War playing out. The results of the North American battles were just bargaining points in negotiating the Treaty of Paris.

As above.

The fact is that the French were never going to be capable of conquest of the British colonies in the New World, barring the truly miraculous ( heck, Montcalm's victory at Carillon in 1758 was virtually a miracle and it didn't change much ). Best case scenario would be an early series of knockout blows that ended the Seven year War by 1757 or at least early 1758, the high mark of French success in the Americas.

Something like a far more decisive victory by the French at Hastenbeck in July of 1757 ( the French did win, but it was a minor victory at best ) that completely broke the Anglo-Hanoverian army, with the killing or capture of Cumberland, such that "British Germany" was exposed to being overrun by France. Follow that with a crushing defeat of Frederick the Great, either at Rossbach in November of 1757 ( ditch the utterly incompetent Soubise and replace him with someone like de Broglie ) or more likely Leuthen in December of 1757 ( ditch the utterly incompetent Charles Alexander of Lorraine, Frederick's favorite punching bag, and replace him with the excellent Daun who was present and had already beaten Frederick once and would again ).

If those beats were bad enough to end the war by early 1758, in concert with the failure to assault Louisburg and Montcalm's advance in 1757, New France would have been preserved for awhile and maybe even won some minor concessions. But not expanded substantially into English territory - that was never going to happen, as the French just weren't numerous enough for that too make sense.

[Two Many Cats]

One great big huge Canada?

[Little Nemo]

No American Revolution, no French Revolution -- the latter happened when it did mainly because the cost of aiding the Americans in the former near-bankrupted the French Crown, Louis XVI found it necessary to call an Estates-General for the first time since 1614 to authorize new taxes, and things got out of hand from that point on -- culminating in the dictatorship of Napoleon. So, no Emperor Napoleon, either.

Possibly. But another possibility is that the expense of maintaining a French military presense in North America might have caused an earlier financial crisis and revolution.

Although I'll grant you that an earlier French Revolution would have pretty much rule out the possibility of Napoleon's rise.

[An Gadaí]

Poutine on the menu at every McDonald's, everywhere.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Two Many Cats

One great big huge Canada?

It'll happen. You wait.

[peledre]

Do you mean France beating England just in North America, or defeating the English overall in the Seven Years War?

Edit: Whoops, sorry Gorsnak should've read your post.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

France Beats England in French&Indian Wars, What Happens?

The French subsequently surrender the continent to Tecumseh?






(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Suppose France emerged as the victor, and takes over the Western Hemisphere from England.

I don't believe France wouldn't have taken over the western hemisphere. She would have kept Quebec, of course, and this might have been the source of future conflicts specifically in north america (while during the "french-indian"/ war of seven years the western hemisphere was a sideshow to the main conflict on the continent). There might have been wars against the UK specifically, or maybe more french involvment during the war of independance (or even an alliance with England *against* the nascent USA), a war between France and the USA over borders, or who knows what else.

However, I think that apart the concessions on the european continent (the most important issue for France) France would rather have taken over some british sugar islands in the Caraibeans, and very possibly the british possessions in India (England fought France in India too). *This* might have been important. Maybe that, eventually, France, rather than the UK, would have come to dominate the Indian subcontinent.

[Bridget Burke]

France could hardly "taken over the western hemisphere." Since Spain & Portugal claimed all of South America--& North America up to my current location.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

I don't believe France wouldn't have taken over the western hemisphere.

Sorry, I meant of course"I don't believe France would have taken"

And yes, sorry for the "western hemisphere". I was talking about North America, obviously.

[kopek]

Originally Posted by Spoke

The French subsequently surrender the continent to Tecumseh?


(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

The Natives were screwed no matter who won and the only one I know for sure that thought different was Half King ------- and we could debate that the entire war was his fault anyway. But remember that the French recognized marriages with the Natives that happened under the auspices of the Church and had a fairly good record of honoring their pledges. More of the NA culture would have survived given more time to ingrain itself and they may just have made out better had the British been stalled another 20 years or so.

(Sorry as well - but around the Abenaki fires at Old Fort Niagara its often a subject of debate)

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

Sorry, I meant of course"I don't believe France would have taken"

And yes, sorry for the "western hemisphere". I was talking about North America, obviously.

At one time, Spain held a good bit of North America.