It's an interesting Question. What if the French had defeated the British and Colonial Armies and had actualy won the French and Indian War, and Seven Years War in Europe?
It's an interesting Question. What if the French had defeated the British and Colonial Armies and had actualy won the French and Indian War, and Seven Years War in Europe?
Owned by LORD RAHL Centurion of the Legion of Rahl
Corporal's Corps bdh, Ironbrig4, The Thracian, Mudd, Maron, Happyho
RIP Corporal Gogian and Officer Atherly, your brothers will remember
canada and United states will mostly speak french today
Well, that would suppose the Kings of France had taken a far bigger interest in their colonies than what they did in R/l .
Which, as a consequence, would mean the american colonies would have been under a much more absolutist power that britain imho .
Wether this would have speeded up a longing for independance, or would have quelled velleities of emancipation, I dare not say .
But there is also an interesting thing to consider. If the entire territory of North America had belonged in French control and then been retained by the French until the revolution came what would have happened?Originally posted by Sidus Preclarum@Apr 2 2005, 12:01 PM
Well, that would suppose the Kings of France had taken a far bigger interest in their colonies than what they did in R/l .
Which, as a consequence, would mean the american colonies would have been under a much more absolutist power that britain imho .
Wether this would have speeded up a longing for independance, or would have quelled velleities of emancipation, I dare not say .
U.s would be another gay loving, christ hatin' anti redneck canada maybe?
{mod note}This post is semi-trolling and actually stimulates the process fo the firts threadjack incident by making the topic wobble and become a bit unstable - crandar
Actually wont the US be Canada?Originally posted by Mehmed II@Apr 2 2005, 02:54 PM
U.s would be another gay loving, christ hatin' anti redneck canada maybe?
But then again Canada was under British control longer than America was.
{mod note} after the last semitrollish post, the topic is now wobbling and unstable even though it is not yet blown totally off course -crandar
Hmm... If France gaied control of the English colonies of North America....
The revolution would have had a great impact on the US. Slaves would be freed and indapendance might be granted to a centeralized republic of America, not a federation of states. Napoleaon would probably have done this to create a strong ally and not to have to worry about investing resources in colonization during the Napoleonic wars. The natives would have been treated much better b/c the french treated them much better than the english but as a result America might not have expanded so much.
{mod note}Huzzah for dgoodman, he is struggling to stay on topic, but after this a whole section had to be removed where the particiapants suffered brain damage and lost contact with the topic in a full fledged threadjacking incident - crandar
here is a link to the thread jacked parts:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/index...howtopic=26772
{flanagan earns the first medal for ignoring the first series of threadjack tripe and bring the topic back on course even though this good behvaior is shortlived}
Getting back on track, that is a good question, if France had won the wars in America, would there have been:
1. An American Revolution - Since Taxes from Britain started the War of Independence?
2. French Revolution - France bankrupted itself fighting the American War of Independence, and the French masses looked on new American state as a war of getting rid of their Monarchy?
3. No French Revolution – No Napoleon?
{saved the on topic part and salvaged the good coherent Off Topic part to let the user use it elsewhere}
As for the originial question... if France had won, it's unlikely they would have acquired all the British colonies. France just didn't have the forces or the navy to enforce terms like that. It's actually quite surprising that Britain was able to attain all of Canada. A lot of that has to be due to the destruction of Louisbourg, which made the Canadian territories much less desirable to the French crown, as they had lost their main moneymaking port.
Had France won, it is safe to assume that they would have gained possession of the Ohio River Valley, since thats' what the war in N. America broke out over in the first place. So, America west of the Appalacians would have been in French hands at least for a time. They MIGHT have gained possession of New England, or at least New York. Almost certainly, though, the Mid-Atlantic colonies and the southern colonies would have remained in British hands. And of course, this state would not have remained stable. Another war probably would have been fought a couple decades on that would redraw the boundaries yet again...
That might be true, but these people were persons with certain "qualities" that enabled them to reach the positions they did. A bit of luck and historical circumstance might have helped but it is safe to assume that there were no 2 napoleons or 2 hitlers a.s.o.
Someone else would have risen to power, but would he have done things the same way? Doubtful.
true but i still think hitler was a product of the times im sure there was an equally demented man out there who had an undieing hatred for the allies treatment of germanybit of luck and historical circumstance might have helped but it is safe to assume that there were no 2 napoleons or 2 hitlers a.s.o.
Someone else would have risen to power, but would he have done things the same way? Doubtful.
From the great Gales of Ireland
Are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry,
And all their songs are sad.
G. K. Chesterton
on a sidenote, this threads really makes me want to play some EUII again
I remember a game when the last few English colonies (not "british colony", Scotland had recovered independance and so had Ireland, while England proper was divided between England Puritans, and the formidable french fortress of Cornwales :p) in Northern America rebelled and became the US, immediately to become a client state higly beneficiating from France's financial generosity ... :p
Also that brings up the point that the French cared less about maintence of their colonies than the british and that they were friendlier to the INdians that the Brits. Do you think there would have been a western country in the Americas at all?
Stay on topic and all will be right with the world!!
Threadjack again and ye shall be sent to devil's island with the other French criminals!!
Letter of Marque granted from: Siblesz (Oh noble master!)
Honored Patron of: Invoker47, Epistolary Richard, Simetrical, and Brodiseus
Animis opibusque parati et animus facit nobilem!
1. What do you mean by 'western country'?Originally posted by deathdoom56@Apr 3 2005, 09:30 AM
Also that brings up the point that the French cared less about maintence of their colonies than the british and that they were friendlier to the INdians that the Brits. Do you think there would have been a western country in the Americas at all?
2. The French didn't treat the Native Americans that much better than British at this point in time. The Natives were a wild card in relations between the two powers, as such the various tribes and federations were courted as allies. The major mistreatment of the Native Americans began in earnest after the French were removed from the continent, and they were no longer needed as allies. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that the French would have acted any differently had they been victorious, except, as I mentioned earlier, it is unlikely they would have totally kicked the Brits off the continent.
And even if the Brits were gone, There are still the Spanish to the south.
Owned by LORD RAHL Centurion of the Legion of Rahl
Corporal's Corps bdh, Ironbrig4, The Thracian, Mudd, Maron, Happyho
RIP Corporal Gogian and Officer Atherly, your brothers will remember
Germany would win WW1 and WW2 since the US would be mostly french and/or french territorys, so we would just surrender before anything bad happend to our buildings............. :rolleyes
-ScienCe!
1. Canada, America, etc.Originally posted by McGowan@Apr 3 2005, 03:20 PM
1. What do you mean by 'western country'?
2. The French didn't treat the Native Americans that much better than British at this point in time. The Natives were a wild card in relations between the two powers, as such the various tribes and federations were courted as allies. The major mistreatment of the Native Americans began in earnest after the French were removed from the continent, and they were no longer needed as allies. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that the French would have acted any differently had they been victorious, except, as I mentioned earlier, it is unlikely they would have totally kicked the Brits off the continent.
2. Forgive me if Im wrong, but in addition to allies in war, werent the Indians important trading allies of the French?
Yes, but they were for the British as well. The mistreatment of the Indians was primarily at the hands of the colonials, and then the US government after the Revolution. Even if France had taken the British colonies, the same colonists would have been in them, and they would have continued their push over the Appalachians, thus precipitating wars with the tribes there.
It's not enough to say that the French migh have outlawed settlement west of the mountains. The British DID outlaw settlement west of them, but that didn't actually stop anyone. In fact, it was continued colonial settlement in the Ohio River Valley, and attempts by the Virginia Colony to independently annex what is now W. Pennsylvania, despite it being French territory, that precipitated the French and Indian War in the first instance.
It's unlikely that French ownership of the colonies would have rendered them any more likely to obey official restrictions on expansion. In fact, if the French followed their normal policy of enforced Catholicism in the mostly Protestant English colonies, it's likely that a) the Revolution would have occured sooner, not later (or in this case, a rebellion designed to reaquire British overlordship) or b) the push to expand illegally westward would have accellerated, resulting in increasingly bitter wars with the tribes.
Of course, this is all 'what if' conjecture...
*cough cough*Originally posted by GeneraL_ScienCe@Apr 3 2005, 09:48 PM
Germany would win WW1 and WW2 since the US would be mostly french and/or french territorys, so we would just surrender before anything bad happend to our buildings............. :rolleyes
looks like some haven't paid much attention to some mods' efforts
anyway :
I have to agree that the questions DD56 raised are quite important :
Even if the french gouverment had cared "more" about the colony in order to win those wars, that wouldn't have meant that the French immigration would have been any greater: France being what it was, rather big and fertile, I don't see what would have cause a emigration drive save for massive persecution against protestants . That would have meant fewer colonists overall.
Besides, I don't know much about how the French managed to befriend the Indians, but woulldn't that be also a consequence that lower emigration would mean also a lower immigration pressure on the Indian territories, easing cohabitation ?
In the End, even under French "control", Brit colonies migh still have received more brit colonists than french ones .
If, as McGowan supposes, an "all catholic" policy was enforced, things would have gone down the dumb pretty fast for the French. MAybe it would have resulted in some kind of Independance war earlier ? Maybe England would have jumped on the occasion offered by this conflict to get revenge, and why not get the control of their colonies back, so the changes would have been overall minimal ?