The French Forces in North America during the Seven Years’ War

[viper37]

http://admin.biographi.ca/en/special.php?project_id=49&p=19

There's also a part on the British forces.  It was a nice read, thought some of you might like it.  It's a few pages long.
http://admin.biographi.ca/en/special.php?project_id=49&p=23

Bottom line: French forces were on par with the British in 1756, but it kep degrading rapidly due to corruption, patronage and incompetent officers.  American militia was worthless, in numbers and quality, Canadian militia were the best fighters but not in ranged battles since they had no training. Troupe de la Marine were roughly on par with British regulars, but Troupes de la Terre were about as good as the American militia. The French navy was on par with the British at the start of the war, but many diseases reduced its efficiency and they force recruited many people who had no sea experience, leading to a deteroriation.

The British had way more troops in American than Europe: 23 battalions in America compared to 6 in Germany.

Conclusion: French bureaucracy was inept at governing the country under Louis XV.  When people say life isn't only economy or numbers in a ledger, this should serve as a reminder.

[Valmy]

Blaming it on bureaucracy is a little strange. Louis XV had lost any interest in governing. Cliques of nobles competed to dictate government policy and yeah corruption was rife because nobody was going to hold anybody accountable. The demoralization and entitlement ran deep. Especially in the Army where the nobility was asserting control over all the upper ranks. Any ministers who were effective and were trying to reform and strengthen the country tended to fall prey to court politics, while incompetents who threatened nobody thrived.

[viper37]

Blaming it on bureaucracy is a little strange. Louis XV had lost any interest in governing. Cliques of nobles competed to dictate government policy and yeah corruption was rife because nobody was going to hold anybody accountable. The demoralization and entitlement ran deep. Especially in the Army where the nobility was asserting control over all the upper ranks. Any ministers who were effective and were trying to reform and strengthen the country tended to fall prey to court politics, while incompetents who threatened nobody thrived.

that's about it.  There were huge organisational problems, not present during Louis XIV's reign and that would be solved efficiently under Napoelon, though some progress were obviously made in between.

[Duque de Bragança]

Choiseul came indeed too late but it was still under the Bien-aimé's reign, who worked for the King of Prussia, as most cognoscendi know, so a bit of modération SVP

[grumbler]

I'm not sure why the author argues that British trade in the early 18th C "had remained stationary."  That's not true according to any of the information I have available.  British trade expanded from about 10 million pounds in 1710 to about 16 million pounds in 1740 (and may have been much higher, as this era was the peak of smuggling until the Seven Years' War) and rose steadily until the start of the AWI.  His premise that the primary cause of the war was British jealousy of France seems quite suspect.

The rest of the work seems well-thought-out, but I cannot speak as to its accuracy.

[viper37]

His premise that the primary cause of the war was British jealousy of France seems quite suspect.

There were lots of dispute between French & England about the fur trade in North America (that was about the only commodity of value at the time).  I don't know if jealousy is too strong a word, but France definately had the best access to the best pelts due to its better relations with the Natives and the extant of its territory.

England certainly wanted those resouces, but jealousy or simple commercial dispute, I do not know how to categorize it.

[Valmy]

The only? Um...Tobacco?

But I guess you mean in Canada.