WI: Total French Victory in the Seven Years War

[LMLost9]

There are a lot of threads about a French victory in the Seven Years War, but almost all of them are just something like Prussia is dismantled and France keeps her colonies; this is more like France not losing, instead of actually winning. So, I tried to create an scenario where France actually wins in a similar extent to that of the British victory OTL, to ask about its possible effects on the future, and if it would result in French hegemony for the following centuries.

1. Battle of Rossbach: This battle was lost because at the start Hildburghausen made a disorganised pursuit of the Prussian army, thinking they were retreating; Seydlitz used this opportunity and destroyed the French-Imperial cavalry, ending with this cavalry routing; without cavalry the French-Imperial infantry was completely overwhelmed. Say Hildburghausen does not precipitate and realizes that the Prussian army is not retreating; with better organisation he resists Seydlitz's offensive and forces him to retreat. Then, the French, now, supported by the cavalry defeats the Prussian army.

The Prussian victory at Rossbach convinced Hanover (at this time it was partially occupied by the French because of a truce) to re-enter the war and allowed the Battle of Leuthen to happen. Defeat at Rossbach means no Leuthen, so, Austria consolidates its position in Silesia; Hanover is under French occupation; Saxony is liberated; the Second Treaty of Versailles is not annulled (the Austrian Netherlands were supposed to be divided between France and a French puppet); Prussia is doomed. Say, Berlin is captured the next year after a coordinated offensive.

Austria receives Silesia, France receives the Austrian Netherlands and Russia receives East Prussia, Sweden receives parts of Pomerania, Saxony also gains territory, and the minor Prussian possessions are also divided.

2. North America and the Atlantic: Admiral Le Clue sailed from Toulon for the West Indies and Louisbourg with 6 ships of the line and 2 frigates, but he was caught by a storm that drove him to Cartagena, where the British blockaded his pass. Later, a fleet tried to rescue Le Clue, but was intercepted and the French lost 3 ships of the line. In total 11 ships of the line and 3 frigates were prevented from crossing Gibraltar.

Say, Le Clue is not caught by a storm and evades the British fleet, with this other minor fleets also managing to cross the strait. This 11 ships and 3 frigates reach the West Indies and supply them. Later, they break the British blockade of Louisbourg (8 ships of the line and 1 frigate, with the sailors suffering from cold and scurvy) in a battle, where the British suffer major losses due to the condition of their sailors and being in the exact opposite of the ideal condition to react. So, once Boscawen gets to Halifax sieging Louisbourg is impossible, thanks to the French fleet in North America. The French take advantage of the situation and start an expedition for Newfoundland, which they take (even in 1762 the French were able to take St. John with less than a thousand men). Finally, Le Clue sails from Louisbourg to Brest, now, Britain no longer has an advantage on the Atlantic. So, France is able to constantly supply North America, which results in them consolidating the Great Lakes and the Ohio River Valley.

3. India: The siege of Madras failed because the French fleet could not assist the Army. So, let's say Britain suffers major losses in the Battle of Cuddalore, the French navy is able to assist the army, the Siege of Madras starts months earlier, Madras falls and France has naval superiority in the Indian Ocean. Later, France captures the rest of the British possessions in the Coast of Coromandel

Basically, France gets the Austrian Netherlands, Newfoundland, Acadia, and the British possessions in the Coast of Coromandel, including Madras; Minorca too, but they will probably sell it to Spain, exchange it for Eastern Hispaniola or something. The Great Lakes are recognised as French, too. The war would probably end in 1759-60, and the British wouldn't be able to blockade France, so the French economy won't suffer nearly as much as OTL.

- What effects could such a defeat have in Britain?
- Could French North America survive given this conditions?
- Would France be able to get hegemony in India?
- Would this result in French hegemony for the following centuries?

 

[unprincipled peter]

- What effects could such a defeat have in Britain?
- Could French North America survive given this conditions?
- Would France be able to get hegemony in India?
- Would this result in French hegemony for the following centuries?

Dunno how realistic the Miraculous War is, but simply accepting it at face value....

- reversal of fortune in India is likely to have financial consequences for Britain. They had a nice situation of captive market and industrial revolution, which financed them for a long time. Britain will still have their industrial revolution, but will have lost a major market. They'll be looking to address their inadequacies and the world order, but may be limited in their ability to do so.
-In North America, France being able to resupply their forces, will also allow them to continue paying tribute (aka bribe) their native allies (who went home, OTL, when supply issues cut off French ability to pay tribute). OTL, inability to resupply was the main cause of French defeat, not the population disparity with British North America. If we posit that France wins in Europe, and holds their own in NA, we probably see a return of status quo, with border claims being in French favor. With the state of British and French Navies, I'm not sure I believe France can resupply enough to effect this part of the scenario. We may need to rely on France making gains elsewhere (Hannover, or Minorca, etc) to trade for NA. I think France will look to address the population disparity, fostering migration there. This is likely to be much, much more successful than their attempt to populate Guyana.
-I don't think France would be able to duplicate Britain's success in India.
-I don't think France maintains hegemony (I interpret this to be the world order) for centuries. That's a tall order, and a long time for all sorts of things to happen.

Next up is the Corsican Crisis. OTL, Britain backed down. TTL, they may use the occasion to bring France back down to earth.

Depending on the course of the Corsican War, or whether it happens, the American Revolution is scheduled. Unlike others, I don't think a continued New France will put off the Patriots. The Quebec Acts will be butterflied, but there will be discontent over Britain's inability to win border disputes, especially if Britain trades American interests for British European interests, and Britain is still likely to try taxing the colonies. Here, though, France may not be willing to back them, and won't have Spain as an ally in the endeavor (the Portuguese War of '62 is butterflied). At most, France sticks with just enough covert supply to the Patriots to cause problems for Britain. I don't think this is enough to win the war for the rebels.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

There are a lot of threads about a French victory in the Seven Years War, but almost all of them are just something like Prussia is dismantled and France keeps her colonies; this is more like France not losing, instead of actually winning. So, I tried to create an scenario where France actually wins in a similar extent to that of the British victory OTL, to ask about its possible effects on the future, and if it would result in French hegemony for the following centuries.

1. Battle of Rossbach: This battle was lost because at the start Hildburghausen made a disorganised pursuit of the Prussian army, thinking they were retreating; Seydlitz used this opportunity and destroyed the French-Imperial cavalry, ending with this cavalry routing; without cavalry the French-Imperial infantry was completely overwhelmed. Say Hildburghausen does not precipitate and realizes that the Prussian army is not retreating; with better organisation he resists Seydlitz's offensive and forces him to retreat. Then, the French, now, supported by the cavalry defeats the Prussian army.

The Prussian victory at Rossbach convinced Hanover (at this time it was partially occupied by the French because of a truce) to re-enter the war and allowed the Battle of Leuthen to happen. Defeat at Rossbach means no Leuthen, so, Austria consolidates its position in Silesia; Hanover is under French occupation; Saxony is liberated; the Second Treaty of Versailles is not annulled (the Austrian Netherlands were supposed to be divided between France and a French puppet); Prussia is doomed. Say, Berlin is captured the next year after a coordinated offensive.

Austria receives Silesia, France receives the Austrian Netherlands and Russia receives East Prussia, Sweden receives parts of Pomerania, Saxony also gains territory, and the minor Prussian possessions are also divided.

2. North America and the Atlantic: Admiral Le Clue sailed from Toulon for the West Indies and Louisbourg with 6 ships of the line and 2 frigates, but he was caught by a storm that drove him to Cartagena, where the British blockaded his pass. Later, a fleet tried to rescue Le Clue, but was intercepted and the French lost 3 ships of the line. In total 11 ships of the line and 3 frigates were prevented from crossing Gibraltar.

Say, Le Clue is not caught by a storm and evades the British fleet, with this other minor fleets also managing to cross the strait. This 11 ships and 3 frigates reach the West Indies and supply them. Later, they break the British blockade of Louisbourg (8 ships of the line and 1 frigate, with the sailors suffering from cold and scurvy) in a battle, where the British suffer major losses due to the condition of their sailors and being in the exact opposite of the ideal condition to react. So, once Boscawen gets to Halifax sieging Louisbourg is impossible, thanks to the French fleet in North America. The French take advantage of the situation and start an expedition for Newfoundland, which they take (even in 1762 the French were able to take St. John with less than a thousand men). Finally, Le Clue sails from Louisbourg to Brest, now, Britain no longer has an advantage on the Atlantic. So, France is able to constantly supply North America, which results in them consolidating the Great Lakes and the Ohio River Valley.

3. India: The siege of Madras failed because the French fleet could not assist the Army. So, let's say Britain suffers major losses in the Battle of Cuddalore, the French navy is able to assist the army, the Siege of Madras starts months earlier, Madras falls and France has naval superiority in the Indian Ocean. Later, France captures the rest of the British possessions in the Coast of Coromandel

Basically, France gets the Austrian Netherlands, Newfoundland, Acadia, and the British possessions in the Coast of Coromandel, including Madras; Minorca too, but they will probably sell it to Spain, exchange it for Eastern Hispaniola or something. The Great Lakes are recognised as French, too. The war would probably end in 1759-60, and the British wouldn't be able to blockade France, so the French economy won't suffer nearly as much as OTL.

- What effects could such a defeat have in Britain?
- Could French North America survive given this conditions?
- Would France be able to get hegemony in India?
- Would this result in French hegemony for the following centuries?

Forgetting realism
1. So Britain would lose some territories in India and the ones gained in the territories of Utrecht
This would mean that Great Britain doesn't have one its main sources of revenue as OTL and a market where industrial goods can be sold therefore the industrial revolution, which probably still happens, will be much less successful in Britain as it isn't the global hegemon that it was in our timeline.
2. French North America could survive although the French should begin to populate Louisiana and Quebec
3. Yes in our timeline in the beginning of the war the French managed to have positive results in India so in an universe where they win the war they would make some gains in India and as the French had a much better relationship with the the other kingdoms on the sub-continent I hardly see the British kicking them out also the British won't be able to conquer all of India although I hardly see the French conquering everything.
4. Not necessarily as they would have to build up their navy, populate North America and maintain their dominance on the European continent however they have the potential to become one.

 

[LMLost9]

Dunno how realistic the Miraculous War is, but simply accepting it at face value....

I have to admit that the French Navy getting to North America is an stretch, but it's not that big of a deal compared to something like Prussia surviving this war.

-In North America, France being able to resupply their forces, will also allow them to continue paying tribute (aka bribe) their native allies (who went home, OTL, when supply issues cut off French ability to pay tribute). OTL, inability to resupply was the main cause of French defeat, not the population disparity with British North America. If we posit that France wins in Europe, and holds their own in NA, we probably see a return of status quo, with border claims being in French favor. With the state of British and French Navies, I'm not sure I believe France can resupply enough to effect this part of the scenario. We may need to rely on France making gains elsewhere (Hannover, or Minorca, etc) to trade for NA. I think France will look to address the population disparity, fostering migration there. This is likely to be much, much more successful than their attempt to populate Guyana

You have a good point, France won't be able to supply their colonies for long, but I mean, if Prussia falls so early and Britain doesn't see progress in any theatre of the war she will give up, by 1758-1760. Since George II is compelled by Hannover and Pitt's legitimacy would decay due to his strategy of focusing in the colonies failing, in fact George II would probably be outraged with him, blaming him for the fall of his homeland.
Do you think France would lift the ban on protestant settlement in their colonies in this scenario?

Depending on the course of the Corsican War, or whether it happens, the American Revolution is scheduled. Unlike others, I don't think a continued New France will put off the Patriots. The Quebec Acts will be butterflied, but there will be discontent over Britain's inability to win border disputes, especially if Britain trades American interests for British European interests, and Britain is still likely to try taxing the colonies. Here, though, France may not be willing to back them, and won't have Spain as an ally in the endeavor (the Portuguese War of '62 is butterflied). At most, France sticks with just enough covert supply to the Patriots to cause problems for Britain. I don't think this is enough to win the war for the rebels.

I mean, the ability of Britain to support Corsica in this scenario is almost non-existent without Minorca, Britain is not in a position to make Gibraltar sustainable by itself like she was in the period between the ARW and the French Revolution, not in less than 10 years.

Spain under Charles III is still interested in an alliance with France, due to Britain controlling Gibraltar and Jamaica, later Belize and the Falklands too; and its alliance with Portugal that threatens Spanish interests in South America. Also, France would hand Minorca to Spain since they never actually wanted it and don't want to alienate possible allies.

The French presence in North America will probably not dissuade the patriots, but it will probably diminish their support. So, I guess we have a weaker American Revolution with weaker foreign support, in the best case they may get their own parliament, which would be interesting.

3. Yes in our timeline in the beginning of the war the French managed to have positive results in India so in an universe where they win the war they would make some gains in India and as the French had a much better relationship with the the other kingdoms on the sub-continent I hardly see the British kicking them out also the British won't be able to conquer all of India although I hardly see the French conquering everything.

I guess that would result in something like the various European Indian companies remaining in coastal outposts and India remaining divided for the foreseeable future.

4. Not necessarily as they would have to build up their navy, populate North America and maintain their dominance on the European continent however they have the potential to become one.

Well, if I'm not wrong France still haves the biggest population in Europe in this period, so they could populate the new world if they actually try.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

This butterflies away the OTL American War of Independence completely.

Not only is there no Quebec Act, with France controlling the Great Lakes there is no Pontiac's rebellion. If any British troops are stationed in the colonies, it will be at colonial request, in case of war with France, and the colonial assemblies will vote taxes to pay for them. The war with France is also ending earlier, meaning less British expenditure on that war. And the British government is less willing to risk a rift with the colonies.

A weaker British India also probably butterflies away the bailout of the East India Company that was the cause of the whole tea scheme and the "tea party", which was the precipitating cause of the break.

If the British government tries to tax the North American colonies directly, it will quickly fold if there is any resistance, and accept the offer of the colonial assemblies to pay for any troops there to protect them against the French, and in this situation the colonial assemblies will make that offer. The fiscal reforms that were instituted by North and the younger Pitt likely happen sooner.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

With a weaker Prussia and no Austrian Netherlands, the Bavarian succession issue is resolved differently. The switch to another branch of the Wittlesbachs either happens without issue, or the Hapsburgs still want Bavaria and offer to swap Milan instead. I don't know if Bavaria would be more valuable to them than Milan.

OTL, the partition of Poland was proposed by Friedrich II of Prussia. Now "Prussia" effectively doesn't exist, and Austria is weaker. I think this means Russia will have a free hand in Poland, but they probably want to keep a puppet Polish kingdom.

An important question is whether the OTL French Revolution still happens. The American War of Independence doesn't happen in the 18th century ITTL. However, Louis XVI is still going to become King, and the French court has victory disease. Chances are good that they do something really stupid and get the revolution anyway.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I guess that would result in something like the various European Indian companies remaining in coastal outposts and India remaining divided for the foreseeable future.

It would more be like India is divided into spheres of influence where you have the coast under direct rule from the Europeans and the rest are allied principalities.

Well, if I'm not wrong France still haves the biggest population in Europe in this period, so they could populate the new world if they actually try.

They had the bigger population in Europe for a long time, this doesn't necessarily mean that they will be able to successfully populate North America, they would have to change something in the way they did it in our timeline which is unlikely if they win the war.

This butterflies away the OTL American War of Independence completely.

Not only is there no Quebec Act, with France controlling the Great Lakes there is no Pontiac's rebellion. If any British troops are stationed in the colonies, it will be at colonial request, in case of war with France, and the colonial assemblies will vote taxes to pay for them. The war with France is also ending earlier, meaning less British expenditure on that war. And the British government is less willing to risk a rift with the colonies.

A weaker British India also probably butterflies away the bailout of the East India Company that was the cause of the whole tea scheme and the "tea party", which was the precipitating cause of the break.

If the British government tries to tax the North American colonies directly, it will quickly fold if there is any resistance, and accept the offer of the colonial assemblies to pay for any troops there to protect them against the French, and in this situation the colonial assemblies will make that offer. The fiscal reforms that were instituted by North and the younger Pitt likely happen sooner.

With a weaker Prussia and no Austrian Netherlands, the Bavarian succession issue is resolved differently. The switch to another branch of the Wittlesbachs either happens without issue, or the Hapsburgs still want Bavaria and offer to swap Milan instead. I don't know if Bavaria would be more valuable to them than Milan.

OTL, the partition of Poland was proposed by Friedrich II of Prussia. Now "Prussia" effectively doesn't exist, and Austria is weaker. I think this means Russia will have a free hand in Poland, but they probably want to keep a puppet Polish kingdom.

An important question is whether the OTL French Revolution still happens. The American War of Independence doesn't happen in the 18th century ITTL. However, Louis XVI is still going to become King, and the French court has victory disease. Chances are good that they do something really stupid and get the revolution anyway.

There would be no American Revolution as one of the main causes of the revolution was expansion West and if it did happen without French and Spanish help they won't succeed, they will only get some representation in parliament.
Austria isn't weaker, it has Silesia which is much more valuable than the Austrian Netherlands however it is true that without the Prussians, Poland isn't divided, also Poland is an important French ally therefore it will be fought over (diplomatically) by France and Russia. Austria would also support an independent Poland to prevent Russian expansionism however slowly but steadily the Russians will gain territory at Poland's expenses but it would last much longer than OTL

 

[LMLost9]

With a weaker Prussia and no Austrian Netherlands, the Bavarian succession issue is resolved differently. The switch to another branch of the Wittlesbachs either happens without issue, or the Hapsburgs still want Bavaria and offer to swap Milan instead. I don't know if Bavaria would be more valuable to them than Milan.

The reasoning behind the Habsburgs having Milan is pretty much the same as to have the Austrian Netherlands, containing France. So, Joseph II would probably still prefer Bavaria, exchanging Milan and Parma (they were supposed to exchange Parma for the Austrian Netherlands with France before Rossbach, in this case the treaty is still ongoing, so the exchange happens) for Bavaria. Austria with Bavaria and Silesia is probably incredibly powerful.

OTL, the partition of Poland was proposed by Friedrich II of Prussia. Now "Prussia" effectively doesn't exist, and Austria is weaker. I think this means Russia will have a free hand in Poland, but they probably want to keep a puppet Polish kingdom.

Austria is probably stronger, Silesia is much more valuable than the Netherlands for them. Anyways, they don't have an effective way to get as much influence in Poland as Russia, the partitions are butterflied. So, if Catherine still deposes her husband, which I'm pretty sure she will, we would have Poland progressively becoming an effective Russian puppet, waiting for the moment when all of the great powers are too busy fighting each other to try to effectively take over Poland.

An important question is whether the OTL French Revolution still happens. The American War of Independence doesn't happen in the 18th century ITTL. However, Louis XVI is still going to become King, and the French court has victory disease. Chances are good that they do something really stupid and get the revolution anyway.

Without the ARW debt and with the Austrian Netherlands and their Caribbean colonies intact it's almost impossible for France to screw things nearly as much as OTL. The only way I see them managing to screw everything as much as OTL is getting both Spain and Britain against them, which is almost impossible with Charles III on the throne.

They had the bigger population in Europe for a long time, this doesn't necessarily mean that they will be able to successfully populate North America, they would have to change something in the way they did it in our timeline which is unlikely if they win the war.

They would probably end up losing parts of the Ohio River Valley, and being forced to share lake Ontario and lake Erie, because of the British colonists. But after that, the government would probably and hopefully gain consciousness of the situation, and start sending more people.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The reasoning behind the Habsburgs having Milan is pretty much the same as to have the Austrian Netherlands, containing France. So, Joseph II would probably still prefer Bavaria, exchanging Milan and Parma (they were supposed to exchange Parma for the Austrian Netherlands with France before Rossbach, in this case the treaty is still ongoing, so the exchange happens) for Bavaria. Austria with Bavaria and Silesia is probably incredibly powerful.

While I agree that the Austrian Netherlands would be given up you shouldn't forget that the alliance between Austria and France was certainly not one that would last if the French had won as Austria would want to contain France once they take back Silesia, also Milan is an extremely rich province and key for the defense of Northern Italy, I don't see why they would give it up for Bavaria

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Austria is probably stronger, Silesia is much more valuable than the Netherlands for them. Anyways, they don't have an effective way to get as much influence in Poland as Russia, the partitions are butterflied. So, if Catherine still deposes her husband, which I'm pretty sure she will, we would have Poland progressively becoming an effective Russian puppet, waiting for the moment when all of the great powers are too busy fighting each other to try to effectively take over Poland

France also held interests in Poland therefore it would be an alternative "Eastern Question" but with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth instead of the Ottomans, which would be very interesting as Austria would hesitate between fighting the French or the Russians in the next big war. I think that Poland would slowly but surely end up being puppeted by the Russians however it wouldn't be nearly as fast as the Partition of OTL

 

[Umbric Man]

I believe France wanted an expedition to recapture Acadia in general and not just Louisbourg, albeit that may be the Le Clue expedition spoken of. In which case, if we assume it succeeds or at least Louisbourg is recaptured, and St. John's is conquered, then France would probably gun for the following North American borders and conditions:

-Ile-Royal (PEI and Cape Breton), mainland Acadia (New Brunswick), and Terre-Neuve (Newfoundland) restored definitively to France.
-The Thirteen Colonies' borders definitively set at the Appalachian crest/Proclamation of 1763 line and mainland Acadia's border definitively at its original set border of the Kennebec River. Probably Georgia definitively set at the Altamaha River to placate Spanish Florida as well.
-Exiled Ile-Royalais (demonym?) and Acadians given passage back to Ile-Royal, Acadia, and Terre-Neuve.
-The Acadian Expulsion halted immediately.
-American colonists west of the Appalachians move back to the Thirteen Colonies.

If they can take peninsular/the actual main part of Acadia (NS) that was the heart of Acadia till 1713, they will definitely do so and expel the British settlers that are there, though they're mainly living in Halifax and Annapolis Royal and halfway synonymous with British soldiers in those towns. So from that the worst case for British America is the minimum Thirteen Colonies border: the Appalachian crest, the Kennebec River (Maine), and Altamaha River (Georgia). If France has even any wisdom in it for their sudden blessed fortune in North America, they will try to get every exiled Acadian back to Acadia and begin populating it, other settlers for Terre-Neuve, Canada, and Louisiana (boosted by any Cajuns that'll remain) and force the Iroquois either into second-rate status or ally with them to keep the Americans in check alongside other tribes along the Appalachians and building up their string of forts from Detroit to the Mississippi mouth.

I'll cop I can see them figuring out borders with Spain over Texas and Florida once they're the North American hegemon. Texas at the Sabine and Red (Jefferson noted Europeans in the area for ages considered that the de-facto border between Louisiana and Texas) and Florida (likely the Apalachicola, or maybe really nab all they can get and take to the western border of 1783-1819 East Florida at the Suwanee). If they can ever nab Rupert's Land they have easy access to the Oregon Country and can divvy it up with Spain and Russia (Alaska) as they see fit.

 

[LMLost9]

While I agree that the Austrian Netherlands would be given up you shouldn't forget that the alliance between Austria and France was certainly not one that would last if the French had won as Austria would want to contain France once they take back Silesia, also Milan is an extremely rich province and key for the defense of Northern Italy, I don't see why they would give it up for Bavaria

Bavaria is probably more defensively important, I mean 2 times Vienna was under the threat of falling to the French, two times it was because of Bavaria. It also goes along with Joseph II's interests of permanently securing the HRE succession for the Habsburgs and getting more German population to create a counter balance.

Another possibility is exchanging it for Tuscany and Parma, which may be safer. Anyways, it probably depends on if Charles Theodore accepts the deal and the ability of Joseph II to to force him to accept.

I believe France wanted an expedition to recapture Acadia in general and not just Louisbourg, albeit that may be the Le Clue expedition spoken of. In which case, if we assume it succeeds or at least Louisbourg is recaptured, and St. John's is conquered, then France would probably gun for the following North American borders and conditions:

-Ile-Royal (PEI and Cape Breton), mainland Acadia (New Brunswick), and Terre-Neuve (Newfoundland) restored definitively to France.
-The Thirteen Colonies' borders definitively set at the Appalachian crest/Proclamation of 1763 line and mainland Acadia's border definitively at its original set border of the Kennebec River. Probably Georgia definitively set at the Altamaha River to placate Spanish Florida as well.
-Exiled Ile-Royalais (demonym?) and Acadians given passage back to Ile-Royal, Acadia, and Terre-Neuve.
-The Acadian Expulsion halted immediately.
-American colonists west of the Appalachians move back to the Thirteen Colonies.

If they can take peninsular/the actual main part of Acadia (NS) that was the heart of Acadia till 1713, they will definitely do so and expel the British settlers that are there, though they're mainly living in Halifax and Annapolis Royal and halfway synonymous with British soldiers in those towns. So from that the worst case for British America is the minimum Thirteen Colonies border: the Appalachian crest, the Kennebec River (Maine), and Altamaha River (Georgia). If France has even any wisdom in it for their sudden blessed fortune in North America, they will try to get every exiled Acadian back to Acadia and begin populating it, other settlers for Terre-Neuve, Canada, and Louisiana (boosted by any Cajuns that'll remain) and force the Iroquois either into second-rate status or ally with them to keep the Americans in check alongside other tribes along the Appalachians and building up their string of forts from Detroit to the Mississippi mouth.

I'll cop I can see them figuring out borders with Spain over Texas and Florida once they're the North American hegemon. Texas at the Sabine and Red (Jefferson noted Europeans in the area for ages considered that the de-facto border between Louisiana and Texas) and Florida (likely the Apalachicola, or maybe really nab all they can get and take to the western border of 1783-1819 East Florida at the Suwanee). If they can ever nab Rupert's Land they have easy access to the Oregon Country and can divvy it up with Spain and Russia (Alaska) as they see fit.

France could probably retake Acadia, if it's only New Brunswick (not Nova Scotia), since Britain didn't bother to garrison Fort St. Frederic and Fort Beausejoir, and the Acadian expulsion was not that extended until the fall of Louisbourg. France would need to fortify the north of the Kennebec river a lot to keep this colony. In this scenario with New France so extended, it would be interesting to see how a French colonist descendant from New Orleans defers from one of Montreal after a century or so.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Bavaria is probably more defensively important, I mean 2 times Vienna was under the threat of falling to the French, two times it was because of Bavaria. It also goes along with Joseph II's interests of permanently securing the HRE succession for the Habsburgs and getting more German population to create a counter balance.

Another possibility is exchanging it for Tuscany and Parma, which may be safer. Anyways, it probably depends on if Charles Theodore accepts the deal and the ability of Joseph II to to force him to accept.

Exchanging Bavaria for Tuscany and Parma makes much more sense as the defense of Northern Italy isn't put at risk.
However one of the issues for France ITTL is that everybody will join the next big war against France except maybe for Poland and Spain therefore France would probably lose north America anyways, the biggest difference OTL is that the British have lost India and the French can pay back their debts thanks to India and some extra territory in Europe.

 

[LMLost9]

However one of the issues for France ITTL is that everybody will join the next big war against France except maybe for Poland and Spain therefore France would probably lose north America anyways, the biggest difference OTL is that the British have lost India and the French can pay back their debts thanks to India and some extra territory in Europe.

I mean, Spain was quite a big deal before losing her American Colonies, and she has every reason to join France, even more if is to fight Austria, since it would secure her Italian interests.

So, the war looks something like France, Spain and Naples vs Britain, Austria, and probably The Netherlands Portugal and Savoy. France and Spain have had time to increase their navy, OTL we saw how many problems the Bourbon navy gave to Britain in the ARW, the difference is that France and Spain are stronger, while Britain is quite weaker. British presence in the Mediterranean is not nearly enough to threaten the Bourbons in any way, hardly being able to relieve a possible siege of Gibraltar. In the Caribbean French presence is stronger, OTL France won in the Caribbean even after losing the battle of the Saintes, ITTL France could easily trade any Caribbean gains for her American colonies. In the European continent, France has the advantage, at least in the Rhein and the Netherlands; this Portugal is stronger than in 1762, which is ironically bad for Portugal, because now Spain can wage a conventional war as they expected in 1762; Italy might be where the Bourbons are the weaker side, but it's not that big of a deal. In India France may lose too. In North America France most probably loses in the Ohio River and the Great Lakes, but without naval supremacy the British would need to pass through Montreal before taking Quebec, which is harsh to say the least, so all the gains they make could just be returned in exchange for Caribbean colonies.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I mean, Spain was quite a big deal before losing her American Colonies, and she has every reason to join France, even more if is to fight Austria, since it would secure her Italian interests.

So, the war looks something like France, Spain and Naples vs Britain, Austria, and probably The Netherlands Portugal and Savoy. France and Spain have had time to increase their navy, OTL we saw how many problems the Bourbon navy gave to Britain in the ARW, the difference is that France and Spain are stronger, while Britain is quite weaker. British presence in the Mediterranean is not nearly enough to threaten the Bourbons in any way, hardly being able to relieve a possible siege of Gibraltar. In the Caribbean French presence is stronger, OTL France won in the Caribbean even after losing the battle of the Saintes, ITTL France could easily trade any Caribbean gains for her American colonies. In the European continent, France has the advantage, at least in the Rhein and the Netherlands; this Portugal is stronger than in 1762, which is ironically bad for Portugal, because now Spain can wage a conventional war as they expected in 1762; Italy might be where the Bourbons are the weaker side, but it's not that big of a deal. In India France may lose too. In North America France most probably loses in the Ohio River and the Great Lakes, but without naval supremacy the British would need to pass through Montreal before taking Quebec, which is harsh to say the least, so all the gains they make could just be returned in exchange for Caribbean colonies.

Austria and Britain wouldn't have any interests in joining a war with this teams, I would remember you that ITTL Britain lost all of India (and the NA territories gained in the Treaty of Utrecht) therefore they are a LOT weaker than they were in the Seven Years War(?) also Austria isn't able to protect effectively Hanover which is the only thing the British care about on the continent, if they decide on this course this gives the Bourbons more time to build up their navy thanks to income made from the colonies, therefore they would probably be able to reinforce NA properly and without the Austrian Netherlands to "shield" Germany the French would just walk into the Rhineland and Western Germany as the Austrian don't have enough control over all of the small German states to make a proper defense.