Could the French have realistically won this conflict? How close were the odds? What might be the consequences? Clearly hegemony over North America was massively important.
Ignorant ameriburger here, all we learned was that "The British taxed America unfairly after the French and Indian Wars and thats why theyre important"
French and cowards with no morale and the only way they could have won this war would be for them to lose their French identity itself.
>Could the French have realistically won this conflict? How close were the odds?
Literally closer than everything else in history. Look up the miracle of Haus Brandenbug
France should have focused on only one of the major battlefields (europe/north america). I suggest europe.
Yes , if Louis XV wasn't a coward , besides this cuck shouldn't left the fucking rhine
In the new world? No. The population of New France was just too small to have ever mounted an effective resistance. By 1760, there were 60,000 people living in New France. There was 1.5 million living in the thirteen colonies. And due to logistical constraints, France could have never realistically sent a large army to America to defend its colonies and fight a large scale war. A similar thing can be said for India, with French colonies there, dispite being allied to the Mughals, having much to small a population/economy to realistically take the British Indian holdings
The French Navy was also outclassed by the Royal Navy too by the time of this war, so France mounting an effective overseas/colonial conflict would have been even more unrealistic and challenging
They could have perhaps fought a better land war in Europe against Prussia, however, provided that the European theatre takes all of their attention, and provided their leadership was a bit better organised
Napoleon would have won if Trafalgar was won, he could have invaded the UK ending the Napoleonic wars
>Napoleon could have invaded the UK
The problem of France is that they underestimated the importance of a powerful navy when you had a colonial empire, so their colonies had to rely on themselves for defence since France was focusing on the european theater anyway.
It's actually impressive that french canada managed to resist and repelled the british for so long although the thirteen colonies had a way larger population than new france and britain was focusing on the colonies.
Also France probably underestimated the importance of North America back then (and everyone did, probably) as they preferred to lose Canada than the rich sugar islands in the caribbeans anyway.
We shall storm the beaches!
If Napoleon won Trafalgar, it would have been quite easy.
French navy winning is impossible tho lol
>Osprey posting
>By 1760, there were 60,000 people living in New France. There was 1.5 million living in the thirteen colonies.
It's like you're trying to sound as clueless as possible
The French Crown had a powerful navy. They refused to get it operational on time and the king famously refused to make use of innovating naval strategies because 'muh ethics'.
>It's actually impressive that french canada managed to resist and repelled the british for so long
It's not if you're not clueless about the realities of logistics and the distances involved on that theater
>although the thirteen colonies had a way larger population than new france
Didn't remotely matter. The redcoats fighting were on Britain's payroll. No one in the colonies knew how to fight nor was willing to risk their skin 500 miles up north for a crown they already resented.
The 60000 french Canadians were all part time soldiers on the other hand, were used to covering great distances in the wilds and had a strong bond and willingness to engage with natives that the British settlers did not share.
The war was a stalemate with no sides having the means to pull a decisive move until Louis XV decided to abandon the colony entirely and later use it as a bargaining ship for what he considered more important possessions.
France not underestimated the importance of a powerful navy but France was not UK and thus doesn't have to focuse only on his navy . Having the most powerful army cost a shit ton of money adding the most powerful navy and you can't breath ask Louis XIV. However, it's right that Louis XV had let fall the navy this cunt really fucked his kingdom
France had almost no enemies to fight on land. They got curbstomped by 3 minuscule german states. The French army by then had become a massive joke. Undisciplined, carrying an immense baggage of luxuries, rampant nepotism in higher position with no application of meritocratic principles whatsoever.
Had it been reformed before and had Louis XV been less of a pussy and towed the taxation line like his great grandfather, this war would have lead him all the way to the Rhine.
But then Britain probably pushed for these initially absurd odds because they knew the French government was completely inept.
Totally agree with you , Louis XV really fucked to think that it's Louis XVI who got to repay the token even if he wasn't a good king either
>Could the French have realistically won this conflict?
In Europe yes, they should have even
What Prussia accomplished alone against France, Spain, Austria and Russia is very impressive
Now in North America, it's the French who were impressive
Despite unwinnable odds (outnumbered 4 to 1) they managed to hold for an entire decade
I think it's due to the fact the English land army was the worse of all Europe in that era
>France could've won if they won
>Ignorant ameriburger here, all we learned was that "The British taxed America unfairly after the French and Indian Wars and thats why theyre important"
and thats not even true
Yes, it is, and was one of the reasons the bongs were sent packing.
The Thirteen Colonies weren't taxed anymore than the rest of Britain's territories and own country were.
I think you're unaware of taxation policies on the 13 colonies, given your obviously false statement and the unique taxation methods used in these different geographic regions. Additionally, the taxes were imposed from across the ocean, and apparently the people imposed upon felt it was cheaper to go to war than to pay the tax, which should serve to disprove your statement.
>the French
It was a German war that started in Saxony with the Prussian invasion and then spilled over to extraeuropean theatres as there were already tensions between UK and France and Spain.
On paper, Prussia and those minor German states allied to them should have been absolutely obliterated. But France's armies performed very poorly and, as usual, so did the Austrians. Still, Prussia would have eventually been overran if not for Russia pulling out of the war.
Overseas it was a different story. UK participation in the European theatre was just about subdizing the Prussian army, while focusing their own forces on the overseas theatre. France on the contrary had to split her forces between both theatres. Their fight in North America was against much bigger odds than those of Prussia.