--Marcpasquin 18:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC) A bit of a justification:
1760-1763[]
The POD is the battle of Québec. In our timeline, Moncalm (the french general) Decided not to wait for the reinforcement he knew was comming before taking the field. There was nothing urgent (they were assieged but not in any present danger) and he was well known as a patient man. This rash decision which cost him the battle was never realy explained by anyone so one could assume that he might simply have got up on the wrong foot that day.
On Alpha, he waited and with de bougainville's cavalry, he manage to repel the british force (although probably with some losses). The rest of the 7 years war goes on more or less the same and during the meeting for the treaty of Paris, both side exchange territories as *here* with the obvious exception that France manage to keep its north-american mainland posessions.
1763-1778[]
The influence right away is that the king's advisers have a clear example as to why France should spend more resources on protecting its colonies. Some of the suggestions made *here* are actualy implemented: Certain minority groups such as the protestants would be strongly encouraged to resettled (not deportation per say, more like promises of freedom of practices in certain parts). This would not be unsual as the kingdom of france was always based on provincial particularism (different laws and governing system depending on the province).
Of course there would also be other measures: Increased funding for the navy which was in charge of the colonies and either harsher treatments or conciliatory ones for the more unstable part of the empire (depending on the feasability of peace). One such place would have been corsica where it would appear that some of the lower nobility would have been in favour of conciliation as long as their status was protected. One such local noble would have been napoleon's father who, by joining the french apparatus, would have been put on the ci-devant list during revolutionary times. because of this, Napoleon's would have been thrown out of the army and posibly emprisonned.
1778-1789[]
When the time comes as on our timeline for the british north-american to rebel, France might not be so keen to go up against its ennemies yet. The king might lose New-France in which he has invested so much in the last decade not to mention his antilles plantation. The rebels keep on for a year or so but without money to pay its troops, lack of equipment and a British navy in full force (without the dutch and spanish harassing some of its oversea posessions), the rebelion is a failure. The most probable aftermath of this is something similar to what happen after similar events in the 2 canadas and australia: death for the leaders, exiles for some and amnesty for the rest. After a few years, the british government would have given in to some of the rebels' demands.
1789-1793[]
Even without the vast spendings of the US revolution, a lot of money would have gone to the colonies which in addition to bad crops (and thus food shortage) coupled with called for more power from the bourgeois would still have lead to the French revolution. One difference though is that the various measures mentioned before would have lead to a stronger support originaly from some minorities toward the republicans. As soon as they would have realised that far from encouraging their emancipation the republicans planed a greater centralisation, some of these (especialy the ethic minorities) would have felt betrayed and then resist even more strongly the new government then they did *here*.
What this mean is that although this timeline's national assembly of 1789 was stronger then *here*, The convention of january 1793 would, paradoxialy, have been in a more precarious situation. This is why when the vote came to execute the king (the result *here* were close: 380 for, 310 against) the moderates decided to accept the offer of Spain to spare the king in exchange for recognisance of the the republic, neutrality and help in mediation with other european powers (an identical offer made *here* in december 1792). The vote (which I assumed would have still been close, maybe simply reversing the 2 sides' tally) would have been for a suspended death sentence.
It must be understood that many people, even some of the most harden republicans felt uneasy about regicide. There was still a feeling by some that there was something "special" about monarchs (being kings "by the grace of god") while others were not sure of the legality of the act (the constitution adopted earlier gave him some form of immunity) and finaly the pragmatics feared a backlash from the other european states. So the clemency gave an unspoken sense of relief to the population at large.
1793[]
What happen next in regard to the king was probably a bit uncertain at the time, sending him in exile would give a symbol for the reactionaries to rally around but keeping him locked up might lead to a mob-lynching encouraged by the extremists. Nonetheless, The second was probably safest by far. The uncertainty would have given the republic breathing space for the time being. The jacobins would have probably lost some of their power in favour of the moderate Girondists.
1794[]
for aerosteer explanation, see here
1802[]
The main logistical problem in regard to the invasion of Great-Britain is to get the soldiers to the island. The british army at the time was quite small both in relative terms and in general ones. This was partly a leftover from the english civil war and the distrust of the politicians for a large standing army. So the problem is in regard to the navy. A few things that could go the french way are: more mutinies (*here* there were a few around that time, mostly due to the harsh discipline and nature of punishment aboard vessels) and having the fleet spread thin (as during the American revolution when spain and dutch ships blockaded a few ports). And this is exactly what would have been done *there* with the help of spain and batavia.
In term of local support, *here* the reformists in great britain which grouped together the CorrespondinG Society of London, of edinburgh and other local ones claimed about 300 000 members before 1792. With the declaration of war after the death of the king, they were considered a danger to the nation, its clubs closed and its leaders executed. *there*, they had about 6 more years to prepare and received some backing leading up to the invasion of Great-Britain.
The notion of an "English Revolution" would have been more then retoric, although they would indeed get backing from france, it would be in a similar fashion to the american revolution *here* (officers, material, money) and the majority of the rank-and-file combatants would have been locals.