Could the French of won in India during the Seven Years War?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,912
Spain
Didn' t ultimate success in any colonial venture ultimately depend sea power?
No... everything is relative... depend on Sea Power or not.... ultimate success depend on circumstances and factors not Sea Power... Sea Power will be very important, vital or not.. depends circumstances...
France was defeated because they alwys were very weak in Seaborne... both in land as in Sea.. they were never as Portugal...and of course not as Spain or Great Britain. Would it be possible to France have defended Canada or India against Great Britain? Yes.. why not?
But France was a Continental Power... not so much interested in Colonial Powers (as later Germany, Russia or Austria-Hungary)... France was only interested after the defeat in 1870/71. So, in the days of the Colonial expansion.... France was a weak power in Sea and in Seaborne land...they didn´t lost the Empire because they have not controlled Sea Power but because they were weak in Canada and in India. Too much weak. They were strong in Europe but not in the World.
 
Oct 2015
999
Virginia
The French were weak in Canada and India (and in the Caribbean, West Africa et al) because they could not bring men, weapons, supplies and money across the sea from France due to the Royal Navy. The Spanish and Dutch had the same problem.
I go with Alfred Thayer Mahan.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,091
The French were weak in Canada and India (and in the Caribbean, West Africa et al) because they could not bring men, weapons, supplies and money across the sea from France due to the Royal Navy. The Spanish and Dutch had the same problem.
I go with Alfred Thayer Mahan.
Could and could. They were relatively less inclined to spend the resources on that.

France had(s) to labour under the conditions of 1) being a continental power, with continental rivals, some fairly serious, whereas England on its island(s) was surrounded by relative minnows, except for the possible challenge across the Channel which in itself put a premium on naval power; and 2) France as a maritime power has the added challenge of two coastlines, with rather a lot of continent separating them and no easy access.

I.e. from it's Atlantic coast and its Mediterranean exists no easy continuuum, meaning while the UK can merge and divide its navy as it sees fit navigating its own coastline, the French always had to divide its attention between two seas, and keep a navy for each. Even if spending the same as the UK, it could hardly get the luxury of pulling its entire navy together at any one point, so naval strategic power-concentration was always harder for France to do than the UK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion and Olleus

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,081
The weakness of France in the mid 18th century - particularly in North America - was demonstrated by the capture of its principal fortification, Louisbourg, on two occasions (1745 and 1758). In the Seven Years War (French and Indian War), from 1758 to 1760, nothing much went right for France. In North America there were only about 70,000 French colonials as opposed to around 2,000,000 in the British colonies. The French had 8-10,000 regular troops in Canada, but militia support was minimal due to the small population.

British troop strength was around 50,000 at its peak, but New England, New York, Virginia and even Pennsylvania (when the Quakers modified their pacifist views) contributed about 20,000 "provincial" troops which were used as were the regulars, but were not militia. These states' militia regiments and pioneers/sappers contributed to campaigns as needed. (Militia were heavily involved in 1758 at Ticonderoga, and particularly in the advance to Fort Duquesne - well over half of the 7,000 troops that cleared the Forbes Road were militia from PA, MD and VA.)

France had little prospect of eventual success in North America, and probably less in India.
 
Sep 2016
48
France
Well, the French never intended to fight for 7 years against the British in the first place. The French wanted to quickly seize as much territory as possible in order to make the american colonist back down their claims in Ohio. They managed to do that pretty well, taking Minorca, some forts in America and conquering Hanover. The war wasn't as easy as one might think, the British had a huge advantage since the french navy could never compete with the Royal navy. But the British also showed a great resilience and quickly came back.
Ultimatly, I don't think New France could be defended. The French thought too and decided to fight mainly in Europe, where they also failed. The Canadians fought well to defend their homeland and made the conquest difficult for the British. Maybe if the French had followed the strategy of Vaudreuil who wanted to wage a sort of guerilla warfare with the help of the natives, they could have kept on going for a few years, but nothing was going to change the fate of Canada.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,912
Spain
I think yes... France could have done more in Canada..... in any case Montcalm fought very good... but France, unlike Spain, Portugal or Great Britain ... it was always very weak in its colonies. Maybe because French population did not migrate to overseas...