|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Nov 26, 2020 1:48:09 GMT
If New France is somehow able to survive in existence after the seven years war, probably due to an act of God. What does this mean for British North America? Would we see an American parliament or would American representatives travel to London? Would the continued overplayed threat of New France make the colonists more likely to accept taxation or is a revolution inevitable?
A prewar change could be that since France's control of the area was relegated to forts with minimal effort beyond trade. Given low French birthrates they make more an effort to integrate the native Americans into French society, encourage further emigration from the Metropole and the building up of the colony's economy.
Also open to book suggestions as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by easternroman1453 on Nov 26, 2020 6:22:14 GMT
If New France is somehow able to survive in existence after the seven years war, probably due to an act of God. Why would it be an "act of God?" The French nearly won the war at various points, and the British barely took all of New France after a lot of contentious fighting. France under normal circumstances probably could have won the war. A lot of the reason why it was botched because of the supreme idiocy of Louis XV. That man was the one who single-handedly destroyed the monarchy's popularity by returning the Austrian Netherlands after taking it, to the Habsburgs. His indecisive and incompetence in leadership was what cost the war for the French as he was unable to commit to focusing on America, or in India. As a result he lost both. If you avoid the Bourbon die off where all the other Bourbons who were all groomed for the throne died prematurely of illness, then France would have a King actually groomed for rulership. Louis XV's father the Duc de Bourgogne would have been an ideal candidate to succeed Louis XIV. hat does this mean for British North America? Would we see an American parliament or would American representatives travel to London? Its more likely that the Americans will look to Britain for protection from the French. Things like the Proclamation line of 1763 also would likely not pass. Though its far more likely that some sort of "American Parliament" could be created. Alternatively, the British government might also be able to play the colonies off each other such that no real "American" identity develops. Rather the main identity is as the subjects of the King and as secondary identity as a Virginian, New Yorker, Pennsylvanian, etc. A prewar change could be that since France's control of the area was relegated to forts with minimal effort beyond trade. Given low French birthrates they make more an effort to integrate the native Americans into French society, encourage further emigration from the Metropole and the building up of the colony's economy. This is a likely out come for France as Quebec and the St. Lawrence river valley was quite fertile and ideal for colonization. If France keeps India, or at least the status quo, then they'd also have revenue from that which would also likely help keep the French finances afloat allowing the Ancien Regime to enact necessary reforms avoiding its total structural failure during the reign of Louis XVI in otl. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409 
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Nov 26, 2020 11:41:40 GMT
Not sure the French position was that strong once Britain got decent - or rather very good - leadership under Pitt the Elder because Britain could concentrate far more on the imperial threatres and while not as great as in revolutionary/Napoleonic times its navy have a stringer base in terms of forces and economic support for it. The two crushing defeats in 1759 were a clear demonstration of this. However correct that even after the fall of Quebec there were chances for Montreal to hold out and at one point the French besieged Quebec before the ending of winter enabled reinforcements to lift the siege.
However possibly the single simplest POD would be that Britain keeps one of the French Caribbean Islands and returns Canada. Think it was Guadeloupe but because if the wealth of the Caribbean sugar islands at the time there was a strong temptation to do that. Not sure however if that would have included the Ohio valley area which was viewed as part of Canada at the time but would expect that south of that the British colonies would have been expanded to the Mississippi. A slightly different twist would be if Britain kept Cuba, which again would have been a very wealthy colony, rather than swap it for Florida.
As I understand it the trigger for the proclamation line was it was in response to Pontiac's War when that chief organised a widespread rebellion against the expansion of British rule to the region and it caused enough concerns that Britain issued the restrictions on the seizure of Indian lands to avoid further conflict.
If the Guadeloupe/Canada return went the other way then depending on the NW border the colonials will be unhappy but the continued threat from France, possibly combined with their fellow Bourbon allies in Louisiana - assuming western Louisiana is transferred to Spain here - is likely to moderate unrest. You many still get the Proclamation Line or some equivalent or Britain might take a harsher line and open up more land for settlers?
One other butterfly if Britain takes Guadeloupe then its greater wealth might mean it doesn't feel its' necessary to ask the colonies to make a contribution to their own defence. Which of course was the primary source of unrest so you could butterfly the entire rebellion or change its nature, date and quite possibly outcome.
Of course the other issue is that the continuation of a French Canada is very difficult to maintain from say ~1700 onward simply because of the combination of the more powerful British economy/navy and the huge demographic imbalance between the English and French speaking colonies. Even if France was to hold the colony after 1763 its never going to have anything like the population resources of the lands to the south. As such and give the frequency of the wars in Europe with Britain and France being on opposing sides its hard not to see the region coming under British control in a later conflict. Possibly if it held on until some equivalent of the French revolution occurs it becomes a royalist stronghold the revolt can't reach and hence a British 'ally' for the duration of the conflict. Then depending on the outcome its possible that it may survive if relations between the two countries stay good for a couple more generations and the British/American colonists accept that the 'frozen north' is largely French in settlement.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Nov 26, 2020 22:20:51 GMT
There are some really interesting PODs here to explore. How would the Duc de Bourgogne have prosecuted the war? From the limited amount of information on wikipedia, he appears to be an excellent candidate to be presumably Louis XV. stevep have you ever read the Simon Scarrow Napoleonic series? As his depiction of Pitt the Elder is excellent and shows the superb capabilities of the man. I feel like you are reading my notes as I was thinking about having New France have it's own Prince forming a cadet branch from the main line. Plus it's suitably Machiavellian to deal with rival claimants to the French throne by giving them an honourable position & stipend in the colonies. It might also help me to create the environment necessary for a French territory to experiment with constitutional monarchy, which may or may not flow back to the motherland. That and I also want to see Marshall Davout leading an Army in New France. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Nov 27, 2020 13:42:51 GMT
There are some really interesting PODs here to explore. How would the Duc de Bourgogne have prosecuted the war? From the limited amount of information on wikipedia, he appears to be an excellent candidate to be presumably Louis XV. stevep have you ever read the Simon Scarrow Napoleonic series? As his depiction of Pitt the Elder is excellent and shows the superb capabilities of the man. I feel like you are reading my notes as I was thinking about having New France have it's own Prince forming a cadet branch from the main line. Plus it's suitably Machiavellian to deal with rival claimants to the French throne by giving them an honourable position & stipend in the colonies. It might also help me to create the environment necessary for a French territory to experiment with constitutional monarchy, which may or may not flow back to the motherland. That and I also want to see Marshall Davout leading an Army in New France.
Not aware of that series. Checking on Wiki it seems interesting. However I think the Pitt that would be mentioned there is William_Pitt_the_Younger, the son of the Elder, who later became Earl_of_Chatham. The son was the dominant political figure for much of the Revolutionary Wars having helped rebuild the British economy after the disastrous war against the French, Spanish and Dutch during the American Revolution. The father died in 1778 so presumably had no real role in Scarrow's series while the latter died, still quite young in early 1806.
The father was a very skilled war leader and populist but rather cantankerous. His son who switched to the Tories was more of a very good administrator. The father was an early hero of mine - what youth wouldn't idealise the man chiefly responsible for the victories in the 7 Years War!
I was thinking of a royalist Quebec as a suitable result of a French revolution as it was very socially conservative so its going to be like a Vendee that the rebels can't reach given the ocean and the RN being in the way so it could be a good location for a government in exile. Although the OTL Louis XVIII might still end up spending most of his time in Britain as it would be a lot closer to France and if things go roughly as OTL emerge as the most persistent opponent of revolutionary and later imperial - assuming some dictator like Napoleon arises - France. This status as an ally would protect Quebec against British attack and also probably a US attack if a US state still came into existence - although in the latter case its borders might differ.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Nov 28, 2020 0:16:49 GMT
There are some really interesting PODs here to explore. How would the Duc de Bourgogne have prosecuted the war? From the limited amount of information on wikipedia, he appears to be an excellent candidate to be presumably Louis XV. stevep have you ever read the Simon Scarrow Napoleonic series? As his depiction of Pitt the Elder is excellent and shows the superb capabilities of the man. I feel like you are reading my notes as I was thinking about having New France have it's own Prince forming a cadet branch from the main line. Plus it's suitably Machiavellian to deal with rival claimants to the French throne by giving them an honourable position & stipend in the colonies. It might also help me to create the environment necessary for a French territory to experiment with constitutional monarchy, which may or may not flow back to the motherland. That and I also want to see Marshall Davout leading an Army in New France.
Not aware of that series. Checking on Wiki it seems interesting. However I think the Pitt that would be mentioned there is William_Pitt_the_Younger, the son of the Elder, who later became Earl_of_Chatham. The son was the dominant political figure for much of the Revolutionary Wars having helped rebuild the British economy after the disastrous war against the French, Spanish and Dutch during the American Revolution. The father died in 1778 so presumably had no real role in Scarrow's series while the latter died, still quite young in early 1806.
The father was a very skilled war leader and populist but rather cantankerous. His son who switched to the Tories was more of a very good administrator. The father was an early hero of mine - what youth wouldn't idealise the man chiefly responsible for the victories in the 7 Years War!
I was thinking of a royalist Quebec as a suitable result of a French revolution as it was very socially conservative so its going to be like a Vendee that the rebels can't reach given the ocean and the RN being in the way so it could be a good location for a government in exile. Although the OTL Louis XVIII might still end up spending most of his time in Britain as it would be a lot closer to France and if things go roughly as OTL emerge as the most persistent opponent of revolutionary and later imperial - assuming some dictator like Napoleon arises - France. This status as an ally would protect Quebec against British attack and also probably a US attack if a US state still came into existence - although in the latter case its borders might differ.
Steve
You know our conversations have made me reload Empire Total War to game out these changes in North America. Agreed with the comparison with the Vendee and if revolutionary France does happen. Allowing widespread emigration from the Vendee might be allowed by both respective governments, which would be a better outcome than otl. How does New France develop, since I want them to have their own King, as the French retaining a monarchy is a narrow road to follow. Perhaps the Dauphin or another senior Royal is given the Governor role and if a Republic occurs New France goes their separate way protected behind the Royal Navy. I wonder what their new name would be? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Nov 28, 2020 13:44:40 GMT
Not aware of that series. Checking on Wiki it seems interesting. However I think the Pitt that would be mentioned there is William_Pitt_the_Younger, the son of the Elder, who later became Earl_of_Chatham. The son was the dominant political figure for much of the Revolutionary Wars having helped rebuild the British economy after the disastrous war against the French, Spanish and Dutch during the American Revolution. The father died in 1778 so presumably had no real role in Scarrow's series while the latter died, still quite young in early 1806.
The father was a very skilled war leader and populist but rather cantankerous. His son who switched to the Tories was more of a very good administrator. The father was an early hero of mine - what youth wouldn't idealise the man chiefly responsible for the victories in the 7 Years War!
I was thinking of a royalist Quebec as a suitable result of a French revolution as it was very socially conservative so its going to be like a Vendee that the rebels can't reach given the ocean and the RN being in the way so it could be a good location for a government in exile. Although the OTL Louis XVIII might still end up spending most of his time in Britain as it would be a lot closer to France and if things go roughly as OTL emerge as the most persistent opponent of revolutionary and later imperial - assuming some dictator like Napoleon arises - France. This status as an ally would protect Quebec against British attack and also probably a US attack if a US state still came into existence - although in the latter case its borders might differ.
Steve
You know our conversations have made me reload Empire Total War to game out these changes in North America. Agreed with the comparison with the Vendee and if revolutionary France does happen. Allowing widespread emigration from the Vendee might be allowed by both respective governments, which would be a better outcome than otl. How does New France develop, since I want them to have their own King, as the French retaining a monarchy is a narrow road to follow. Perhaps the Dauphin or another senior Royal is given the Governor role and if a Republic occurs New France goes their separate way protected behind the Royal Navy. I wonder what their new name would be?
If Canada survives as a French state by such a method then as you say either a younger son becomes its own king - although if the US comes into existence anything like OTL expect problems then. Possibly say Louis Philippe as another alternative, which means he isn't available for an equivalent 1830 revolution. Or possibly say post-1815 the Bourbons are deposed and the monarchy flees to N America and the strong loyalist element there. This might be better happening in ~1848 as Louis Philippe was a more liberal monarchy and while the colony was dominated by conservative interests it can't really stay that way if it wants to prosper so reforms will be necessary. Get passed a French revolution and Napoleonic type period and establish it as a friendly state/protectorate to Britain then it could well stay that way. Especially if say a Republican or Napoleonic France becomes the chief rival to Britain for a prolonged period as that gives a common enemy.
New France would probably not be a viable name but possibly Canada or Quebec would be the obvious options to me although there might be others.
Got a copy of Empire TW but one of the many games I've never installed as the ones I have and other activities, such as this site mean I haven't had the time. 
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Nov 29, 2020 23:48:13 GMT
How do you think that the relationship between New France & America develop over time? It's hard to consider other scenarios as the OTL relationship between Canada and America has been positive, so there is a large part of me that thinks pragmatism between the two will win out. Although any relationship may not be as warm as OTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Nov 30, 2020 16:06:42 GMT
How do you think that the relationship between New France & America develop over time? It's hard to consider other scenarios as the OTL relationship between Canada and America has been positive, so there is a large part of me that thinks pragmatism between the two will win out. Although any relationship may not be as warm as OTL.
If the US comes into being, which might bet butterflied then assuming you get the OTL development of manifest destiny its likely to be the primary threat to the state. Especially if the US revolution occurs similarly to OTL with a lot of emphasis on the evils of monarchical government as the state your talking of has a king. In such a case relations are likely to be rocky at times and a lot would depend on what happens with British loyalists in this scenario. Your still likely to have say the Maritime provinces and the Hudson's Bay Company but unless their larger or say there's a substantial loyalist area in say the southern part of the colonies - which would raise questions on the status of slavery, their potential for expansion and development would be small so their power would be limited. Also while New France is aligned with a royalist France in Europe then relations with Britain would also be difficult. If somehow it survived until a French revolutionary event overthrows the monarchy in Europe British/New French relations would be a lot better.
The other issue here is what would be the boundaries of New France? Would it have the Ohio/Great Lakes region which was basically under control of Quebec until handed over to the US in 1783? In which case, if the colony can attract immigrants from France - or other friendly locations - it has the potential for considerable development but also would be under serious threat from the US at any time when the colony can't rely on support from France itself. [Say due to turmoil in France or war between France and Britain].
I suspect you would need something like the OTL 1812 conflict to discourage US encroachment and then both a strong protector and a source of migrants to settle and expand its territories westwards in the rest of the 19thC. Otherwise a US anything like OTL is too likely to swamp the state at some stage or other, either by military means or simply too many settlers.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Dec 1, 2020 0:30:57 GMT
I've always thought that the separatist sentiment will occur in British North America, the question is how it can be effectively addressed so that the colonies can remain loyal to the Crown. Failing that a disunited North America split between three rival factions - New France, British North America and an alternate USA makes for an interesting scenario. Particularly if Mexico can somehow walk a tightrope to good governance leading to an alternate North American superpower. One thing that I think we could explore would be the relationship between the French and the Native Americans, with such a strong threat to their south (in either scenario), should produce more favourable relationships between the respective groups.
This conversation is certainly helping to flesh things out in my head and lead me towards writing that TL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Dec 1, 2020 13:13:33 GMT
I've always thought that the separatist sentiment will occur in British North America, the question is how it can be effectively addressed so that the colonies can remain loyal to the Crown. Failing that a disunited North America split between three rival factions - New France, British North America and an alternate USA makes for an interesting scenario. Particularly if Mexico can somehow walk a tightrope to good governance leading to an alternate North American superpower. One thing that I think we could explore would be the relationship between the French and the Native Americans, with such a strong threat to their south (in either scenario), should produce more favourable relationships between the respective groups. This conversation is certainly helping to flesh things out in my head and lead me towards writing that TL.
Note I'm using Canada for the colony for simplicity in the following.
There's likely to be tension and of the POD is Britain returning Canada in exchange for keeping Martinique then there will be a number of unhappy colonists, especially in the northern part, although the continued threat from France might moderate this a bit. It would also depend on what happens with the Ohio valley region and if British control is still expanded to the Mississippi either/both of which would moderate the colonial feeling somewhat.
Its still likely that the UK will ask the colonies to contribute to their defence and while the clearer threat from a French Canada [and Louisiana if France also kept that ] would mean that opposition to this would be reduced a conflict is still possible if not likely. How that goes would be important as there were chances early on to defeat the rebels and reduce them to basically a guerilla/terrorist group that could end up causing problems. Or that there is an independent US created but BNA, without the Quebec region, would have more territory in the colonies. For instances even as late as Yorktown that campaign ending up as a British rather than a French/rebel victory and continued strong presence in much of the south and the New York area could mean a more even partition of the former colonies. Note that if this doesn't happen and the early US is basically the same territory as OTL its going to be very difficult for Canada to survive once France falls into revolution if that still occurs. [Which I think your planning to get a separate monarchy in Canada?] That is unless its basically a British protectorate for this period and given some of the problems Britain had at this point even that might not be enough. I must admit a bias in that I would like to see a better position for the colonial loyalists [and as a result Britain] after a successful American revolution if that occurs but think its also important for a French Canada.
The relationship between the French and Indians was generally good I think largely because the French were so few in number and hence no great threat to Indian lands and most of the contact was with fur traders who supplied items that the Indians could use in return for furs. Barring serious failures by the French authorities this is likely to stay the case simply because the massive demographic base of the British colonies and their desire for more land they will continue to be the primarily threat. This wouldn't mean a united front so to speak, even OTL some Indians fought for the British in the 7YWs and some for the rebels in the 1776 and 1812 conflicts.
The big issue here would be if France made a major effort to settle Canada, say by a restored Bourbon dynasty after the defeat of Napoleon, possibly followed by a significant flow of French royalists if the Bourbons are again deposed as OTL. This would pose a significant threat to Indian interest so their reasons for staying friendly with the French then would be weaken, although they might still see the British/Americans as the greater threat. Again this could well vary from tribe to tribe and over time. Plus the other issue with Canada is that it has limited potential for large scale settlement due to its high latitude. This could change if the colony continued to expand south to the Ohio but that would be a definite source of major contention with Britain and any US state.
It all depends on how much and by how events vary from OTL. Canada will, at any time it doesn't have realistic and strong support from France, will need good relations with Britain to avoid it being under extreme pressure from Anglo-speakers, whether governed by London or 'Washington'. Its simply the question of the demographic imbalance which unless you see a greatly divided 'US' fractured into multiple antagonistic nations.
If Mexico can be a bit luckier in a faster victory in its independence war and then a better and more stable government afterwards then its likely to be a substantial power in its own right. One thing I did read was that much of colonial Mexico's wealth was mineral in nature and the prolonged struggle for independence meant that many mines were forced to close and never really recovered. Also of course there is the power imbalance initially between the heavily populated central valley which is likely to be the centre of power for the early decades at least and the desire of many thinly settled northern areas to see at least some autonomy and respect by the central government for their interests. Again a divided Anglo-region is likely to favour this, probably more than a British victory in an American revolutionary war. I can't see Mexico gaining or maintaining Spanish colonies like Louisiana or Florida but if they get a decent start and better government then California and even Tejas could well stay under their control.
Anyway some assorted ideas you might find useful.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Dec 2, 2020 0:31:01 GMT
The amount of effort that you provide with your responses is really quite helpful and I appreciate it. Like you I also want a better outcome for the British loyalists and an even distribution of territory creates a tripartite situation in North America, which makes diplomacy fascinating & alliances quite likely. Particularly if Mexico is able to hold onto California creating an utter mess in the North - West, which tends to make for the most interesting of timelines.
Right now I'm 50 / 50 on whether my TL will be a straight alternate history or utilise Alien Space Bats, either option would be a good fit.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Dec 2, 2020 16:37:06 GMT
The amount of effort that you provide with your responses is really quite helpful and I appreciate it. Like you I also want a better outcome for the British loyalists and an even distribution of territory creates a tripartite situation in North America, which makes diplomacy fascinating & alliances quite likely. Particularly if Mexico is able to hold onto California creating an utter mess in the North - West, which tends to make for the most interesting of timelines. Right now I'm 50 / 50 on whether my TL will be a straight alternate history or utilise Alien Space Bats, either option would be a good fit.
Thanks. Glad to be of help. 
An ASB scenario can give you pretty much anything you want, especially if there's a lingering ASB presence to help maintain the necessary conditions. A straight AH should be able to give required starting conditions, depending on what you decide and with a few favourable events then getting a stable situation where a 'Canada' can develop and survive external threats until its accepted by its neighbours as a continuing state. Especially with a stronger left over British North America which counters a weaker US if you go that route. A stronger Mexico giving four basic states so room for various interactions that stops any one getting the military. economic or demographic dominance that the US gained OTL. Questions that come to mind might include:
a) Does Canada avoid the OTL conquest in 1759-60 or still fall but get traded back at the peace and either way, what borders does it have? Most especially where does the Ohio/Great Lakes region end up. Also does Britain still get eastern Louisiana up to the Mississippi [with the exception of New Orleans] and does western Louisiana still go to Spain as OTL?
b) If your going for a successful American revolution what butterflies occur and what borders result. This would affect Britain, Canada/France and possibly Spain as well as the US. I can think of 2-3 changes that could give a strong position for Britain although the earliest would probably mean the clear defeat of the rebellion.
c) Are you going for a French revolution and later possibly a Napoleon type figure emerging. Possibly for the best as a royalist Canada would probably gain protection from Britain whereas if the revolution doesn't occur sooner or later there's going to be another war between Britain and the Bourbon powers and at such a time Canada might be vulnerable to either British naval superiority or opportunist attacks from the US while Britain is preventing aid arriving from France.
d) What happens to France after the revolutionary/imperial period? Does the split from Canada result from a later Bourbon deposition fleeing to Canada or possibly the Canadians getting a monarch from a junior branch of the dynasty or some other option?
e) Possibly after a near loss or recovery of the colonies does France make a major change to policy and rather than restricting settlement to approved colonists seek to encourage a considerable increase in settlers to make the colony stronger? Or you might see a lot of emigres as people flee the revolution. However remembering that, at least unless it gets the Ohio/Great Lakes region or possibly further west and south as well room for substantial numbers of settlers is going to be limited. Also the more settlers looking for land the less support there will be from the local Indians.
Those points and probably a few others I haven't thought of might give you the core of the TL up to say 1840-50ish.
Steve
PS - As I say I'm trying to help but if I'm starting to supply too much input please let me know. Have no intention of 'annexing' the TL.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Dec 3, 2020 5:49:36 GMT
stevep don't worry I don't think you are trying to annex the timeline, rather I view it as taking the time to give me considered feedback. Something that I appreciate. a) Does Canada avoid the OTL conquest in 1759-60 or still fall but get traded back at the peace and either way, what borders does it have? Most especially where does the Ohio/Great Lakes region end up. Also does Britain still get eastern Louisiana up to the Mississippi [with the exception of New Orleans] and does western Louisiana still go to Spain as OTL?
My instinct is that New France avoids conquest during the 1759 - 1760 period and let's suggest that New France is able to acquire most of Ohio or all of it. Which works under the assumption that emmigration to New France is dramatically increased post 7 years war or earlier, which facilitates Ohio's settlement. b) If your going for a successful American revolution what butterflies occur and what borders result. This would affect Britain, Canada/France and possibly Spain as well as the US. I can think of 2-3 changes that could give a strong position for Britain although the earliest would probably mean the clear defeat of the rebellion.
Interested about your potential changes and how we can tweak the borders. I'm leaning towards a cadet branch acceding to the throne or even as part of the arrangement with Great Britain perhaps there is another Royal that can start a new Dynasty. Ideally one that is competent and charismatic... c) Are you going for a French revolution and later possibly a Napoleon type figure emerging. Possibly for the best as a royalist Canada would probably gain protection from Britain whereas if the revolution doesn't occur sooner or later there's going to be another war between Britain and the Bourbon powers and at such a time Canada might be vulnerable to either British naval superiority or opportunist attacks from the US while Britain is preventing aid arriving from France.
I think the Ancien regime will have to change at some point, whether that results in a Napoleonic figure is anyone's guess. As you suggest a rupture with France provides enough change to the dynamics to enable it to survive a bit longer and once it makes it to the late 19th century it is more or less out of the woods.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,409
Likes: 12,028
|
Post by stevep on Dec 3, 2020 12:37:29 GMT
stevep don't worry I don't think you are trying to annex the timeline, rather I view it as taking the time to give me considered feedback. Something that I appreciate. a) Does Canada avoid the OTL conquest in 1759-60 or still fall but get traded back at the peace and either way, what borders does it have? Most especially where does the Ohio/Great Lakes region end up. Also does Britain still get eastern Louisiana up to the Mississippi [with the exception of New Orleans] and does western Louisiana still go to Spain as OTL?
My instinct is that New France avoids conquest during the 1759 - 1760 period and let's suggest that New France is able to acquire most of Ohio or all of it. Which works under the assumption that emmigration to New France is dramatically increased post 7 years war or earlier, which facilitates Ohio's settlement. b) If your going for a successful American revolution what butterflies occur and what borders result. This would affect Britain, Canada/France and possibly Spain as well as the US. I can think of 2-3 changes that could give a strong position for Britain although the earliest would probably mean the clear defeat of the rebellion.
Interested about your potential changes and how we can tweak the borders. I'm leaning towards a cadet branch acceding to the throne or even as part of the arrangement with Great Britain perhaps there is another Royal that can start a new Dynasty. Ideally one that is competent and charismatic... c) Are you going for a French revolution and later possibly a Napoleon type figure emerging. Possibly for the best as a royalist Canada would probably gain protection from Britain whereas if the revolution doesn't occur sooner or later there's going to be another war between Britain and the Bourbon powers and at such a time Canada might be vulnerable to either British naval superiority or opportunist attacks from the US while Britain is preventing aid arriving from France.
I think the Ancien regime will have to change at some point, whether that results in a Napoleonic figure is anyone's guess. As you suggest a rupture with France provides enough change to the dynamics to enable it to survive a bit longer and once it makes it to the late 19th century it is more or less out of the woods.
In terms of a greater loyalist position after a partially successful American revolution then the following could be possibilities.
a) Lord Howe follows up the victory in New York, see Battle_of_Long_Island-Retreat_to_Manhattan, by crushing Washington's forces as he tries to withdraw. I have seen some suggestions he may have allowed the rebels to escape thinking that the defeat would make the rebels willing to come to terms but that the best bet was to allow the defeated forces to escape and hence retain some honour rather than totally crush them. However if he did that this might end the war totally. There are other related possibilities in this campaign such as Washington's crossing of the Delaware being detected and his attack at Trenton becoming a big defeat, see crossing_of_the_Delaware_River.
b) Some butterflies means that Burgoyne's advance through upstate New York succeeds, see Battles_of_Saratoga. Say a 2nd force does advance from New York City as Burgoyne was expecting, that he accepts help and advice from the local Indian allies or something else. This was not only a big morale boost for the rebels but was important in persuading France to support the rebels openly. It could be that without this, at least for a while France and Spain don't go to war with the UK. Hence much greater forces are available to fight the rebels who will also have far less guns, powder, gold to pay their troops etc as OTL. - Stupid! This won't happen with Canada still in French hands, please ignore.
c) That Joseph_Brant has more luck and the Iroquois League survives the war. Possibly the league stays united instead of two of the six tribes eventually joining the rebels. This prompts them to get more support from Britain and that with the support of local loyalists fleeing rebel persecution they manage to defeat the various forces sent against them. Most noticeably the defeat of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition which caused the devastation of Iroquois lands and death of many of their people either from massacres or from fleeing the advancing Americans in mid-winter. This would not only secure the Iroquois but also be a drain on rebel resources and coupled with continued British control of New York City and neighbouring areas could mean that the state ends up in loyalist hands when peace comes. This would be a major boost for the British/loyalist position. - Of course this would be affected by French possession of Canada as the Iroquois position is going to be different.
d) A British success at Yorktown. The easiest way here would be if Battle_of_the_Chesapeake#Background was a clear British victory. I think this could happen if Admiral Rodney in charge of the RN fleet in the region had realised that the French commander De Grasse was keeping all his fleet in the threatre rather than sending part home as he had done in previous years. Rodney, who was feeling unwell split his force and some ships accompanied him back to Europe. Say Rodney learns of De Grasse's actions or simply is in better health. With more ships and a more aggressive commander the French could be defeated as they were by Rodney the following year at the Battle_of_the_Saintes, the following year. This would have a number of results, not just making a siege of Yorktown impractical. The defeat of the French fleet which could well be heavy given their confined position and be followed by the defeat of Barras's smaller forces that arrived shortly afterwards with marines and siege equipment would pose the threat of French colonies in the Caribbean being exposed to attack, an incentive for them to make peace. Also with British naval forces in charge of Chesapeake Bay that would complicate rebel movement. For instance Washington's force was moved by boat to Yorktown and now would have to march overland which would take longer. He had already had one mutiny over outstanding pay which he had had to scramble to get some gold to pay the men and the situation would be worsened now.
This option is likely to lead to a negotiated peace with probably Britain retaining a sizeable chunk of the southern colonies. You might also see them hold what became Maine in the north, which would strengthen the Maritime colonies as they had won a big victory over a Massachusetts force in the Penobscot_Expedition in 1779. There would be a problem here as that would include a lot of territory that became the deep south and hence strongly pro-slave territory which would weaken British America.
If Canada keeps the Ohio-Great Lakes region then it has greater potential in the longer term and possibly the shock from the near defeat prompts France to change its policy and encourage emigration to the colony. This would take time and have limited impact due to the land available as well as probably worsen relations with the local Indians but could well see Canada becoming a sizeable power in the longer term. Possibly avoiding the fall of Quebec would be better in terms of there is less anger in the British colonies at the return of such lands. Perhaps the forces that OTL go against Canada are deployed elsewhere, say leading to more success in the southern colonies or the Caribbean? It would definitely worsen relations with any US state after the latter gains independence as it would be a barrier to their western expansion, at least assuming that the north doesn't end up loyalist. Although given the importance of locations like Boston and Philadelphia to the revolution that does seem unlikely. As I say New York and possibly some neighouring stay in British hands because there was a strong loyalist element there but it would be a rather isolated outpost between the rebels in New England and the central colonies. It depends on how you want the former British colonies split up but if Britain is to be a later ally of Canada it would need to have a sufficient base in N America to both have power itself and also to reduce US power otherwise Canada is going to be vulnerable to the US at any time France is unable to support.
Steve
|
|
