French led Industrial Revolution
- Thread starter srv fan
- Start date
Hendryk
Banned
One way to do that would be for Louis XIV not to revoke the Edict of Nantes, causing the Hughenots to emigrate to Britain, the Netherlands, German states and other places.
As I once suggested in a thread about France going Protestant IIRC (though for the purpose of this WI it's enough that France remain a place in which Protestantism is tolerated), a man like Denis Papin could pursue his research on steam power and give France a half-century head start on Britain.
As I once suggested in a thread about France going Protestant IIRC (though for the purpose of this WI it's enough that France remain a place in which Protestantism is tolerated), a man like Denis Papin could pursue his research on steam power and give France a half-century head start on Britain.
The problem here is the tolerance for social mobility. Britain had it, France most emphatically didn't. Greater religious tolerance promoting a flourishing protestantism (and the more industrious work ethic it implies) could definitely help, but ultimately what is needed is a stronger parliamentary tradition. With entrepeneurs having the possibility of a say in politics if they get rich enough, there would be greater encouragement to innovate in order to raise funds.
It would be exceedingly fascinating, since it would give France a definite head-start in its military dealings with other nations. France holding onto Canada, claiming India, colonising Australia, the whole works. But for this it would need to transform itself from a highly centralised autocracy to the 'nation of shopkeepers' Napoleon complained about so much. If the centralised autocracy never came about, perhaps? No Cardinal Richelieu?
It would be exceedingly fascinating, since it would give France a definite head-start in its military dealings with other nations. France holding onto Canada, claiming India, colonising Australia, the whole works. But for this it would need to transform itself from a highly centralised autocracy to the 'nation of shopkeepers' Napoleon complained about so much. If the centralised autocracy never came about, perhaps? No Cardinal Richelieu?
How about letting any King decide to allow more pragmatism and scientific experimenting in economic policies?
As it was, France was always a country where lots of economic theories competed (some of them pretty good), but that only lead to trying them all pretty much without any system, therefore without much analysing the effectiveness. Thus, banks, large companies, and the likes were always in danger of getting hit by popular resistance resulting in some obscure economic theory and laws/measures to their disadvantage.
If the King had realised those problems, he might have told the economists in his country to try their theories locally, in the smallest cities/provinces they can be effectively measured in. Only successful scientists can become economic advisors or ministers. Popular economic theories get second, third, and more chances, until their popularity vanishes.
I suppose France would pretty quickly have gotten an economic system comparable to Britain, and it would even have improved automatically towards the market liberalism of the US over time - all that maybe within 50 years.
As it was, France was always a country where lots of economic theories competed (some of them pretty good), but that only lead to trying them all pretty much without any system, therefore without much analysing the effectiveness. Thus, banks, large companies, and the likes were always in danger of getting hit by popular resistance resulting in some obscure economic theory and laws/measures to their disadvantage.
If the King had realised those problems, he might have told the economists in his country to try their theories locally, in the smallest cities/provinces they can be effectively measured in. Only successful scientists can become economic advisors or ministers. Popular economic theories get second, third, and more chances, until their popularity vanishes.
I suppose France would pretty quickly have gotten an economic system comparable to Britain, and it would even have improved automatically towards the market liberalism of the US over time - all that maybe within 50 years.
MaoSayTongue
Banned
The main reason England led the Industrial Revolution was natural resources. England had high-grade coal, high-grade iron ore, and plenty of freshwater. The social forces that amplified the Industrial Revolution were brought about by the Industrial Revolution: inclosure (I'm an 18th Century lit guy, sorry) forced the rural peasantry into cities where they could provide labor for the factories.
Global cooling probably also played a role: the Earth reached a thermal minimum around 1700, causing more crop failures--but also fewer plague outbreaks, which made city life more survivable.
France has plenty of water but lower-grade coal and very little iron ore. For them to beat England to the punch, they'd've had to conquer a big portion of Europe at least a hundred years before Napoleon.
Global cooling probably also played a role: the Earth reached a thermal minimum around 1700, causing more crop failures--but also fewer plague outbreaks, which made city life more survivable.
France has plenty of water but lower-grade coal and very little iron ore. For them to beat England to the punch, they'd've had to conquer a big portion of Europe at least a hundred years before Napoleon.
As noted, France simply lacks the resources for an industrial economy. If they lead in industrializing, they are going to hit a cap pretty soon. In OTL, the Germans and Americans learned from the successes and failures of the British, and were able to rapidly industrialize without being weighted down by obsolete infrastructure and capital like the Brits, in TTL, it may very well be the Brits to benefit from French experience, except that the French will maintain their lead for an even shorter period due to their lack of resources.
A lot of AH's tend to revolve around 'enlightened' rulers who encourage new technologies out of their own benefaction. As far as I can tell, in history this attitude tends to stifle industrialisation more than it advances it, simply because industrialisation and commercialisation threaten the supremacy of the nobility. Any new technologies developed in such an atmosphere would be co-opted by the King and used for his own purposes, denying their full usefulness to the general population. A more mercantalist France in which the King takes more of a back-seat to greater productive forces would result in industrialisation sooner. After all, one of the reasons Britain in the 18th century took such a great lead over other countries was that the early King Georges only spoke German, so they were obliged to entrust governance to the Prime Minister of the Parliamentary cabinet.
An analogous situation in France would be when Louis XIV was a child ruler and Cardinal Richelieu built up the centralised French state. If the one who took control during Louis' minority was instead a Parliamentarian who favoured a more...'financial' route to centralisation then we could potentially see an industrial revolution in France down the line, potentially around 1700-1750. During this time the French economy would grow massively, if haphazardly, but would eventually outrun its own resources. Consequently, a mercantalist power on the continent, whoever ruled France at the time might very well attempt a seizure of resources elsewhere in Europe, for example in the Ruhr valley. If mercantalist France wasn't as expansionist as it was during Louis XIV's reign, then it would more than make up for it from the 1750's onwards.
Britain, looking across the channel, could very well learn from the experience and industrialise accordingly, but France would still have a head-start. What consequences would this have for Europe?
An analogous situation in France would be when Louis XIV was a child ruler and Cardinal Richelieu built up the centralised French state. If the one who took control during Louis' minority was instead a Parliamentarian who favoured a more...'financial' route to centralisation then we could potentially see an industrial revolution in France down the line, potentially around 1700-1750. During this time the French economy would grow massively, if haphazardly, but would eventually outrun its own resources. Consequently, a mercantalist power on the continent, whoever ruled France at the time might very well attempt a seizure of resources elsewhere in Europe, for example in the Ruhr valley. If mercantalist France wasn't as expansionist as it was during Louis XIV's reign, then it would more than make up for it from the 1750's onwards.
Britain, looking across the channel, could very well learn from the experience and industrialise accordingly, but France would still have a head-start. What consequences would this have for Europe?
Max Sinister
Banned
Wasn't mercantilism about the state interfering massively with the economy?
Otherwise, the idea is interesting... I'd say, since France is a continental power, they'd use industrialization to a) swamp the continent with their products, until everyone'sin their debt, and b) enlarge the army with the money made and the arms produced, and overrun every European country that dares to make trouble. If they built a big ironclad fleet, they might even challenge Britain.
Otherwise, the idea is interesting... I'd say, since France is a continental power, they'd use industrialization to a) swamp the continent with their products, until everyone'sin their debt, and b) enlarge the army with the money made and the arms produced, and overrun every European country that dares to make trouble. If they built a big ironclad fleet, they might even challenge Britain.
Faeelin
Banned
It should be pointed out that British industrialization began with textiles; which aren't exactly in short supply in France.
Hmm...I was under the impression it meant an agressive foreign policy dedicated towards the opening of markets and the seizure of productive resources for commercial use. Methinks I need to get the glossary books out...
Max Sinister
Banned
Yes, what they wanted was:
- Encouraging export
- Discouraging import, f.e. with tariffs
- Building up reserves of gold and silver
Of course, if every state wants to maximize exports and minimize imports, trade is hampered. Additionally, some of them advocated monopolies.
- Encouraging export
- Discouraging import, f.e. with tariffs
- Building up reserves of gold and silver
Of course, if every state wants to maximize exports and minimize imports, trade is hampered. Additionally, some of them advocated monopolies.
In continental Europe, the word describes a country trying to export as much as possible and import as little as possible - a backward economic system which made sure continental Europe usually stayed behind Anglosaxon countries.
In Anglosaxon countries, the word seems to refer to a policy of making provinces specialise in certain trades - manufacturing in consecutive Britain, potatos in Ireland, tobacco in the American colonies, ressource mining in other countries, and so on. Also backward, but slightly less so.
Yeah, but it also ensured that Britain would have a disadvantage in the post-war world as its 'Commonwealth free trade zone' was entirely based around commodities.
Anyway, the point I was trying to get across (badly with my misplaced use of the word 'mercantalist', I admit) was that I wasn't suggesting that centralisation was bad and decentralisation was good. What I was suggesting was that centralisation could still occur, but in a different way. While Cardinal Richelieu (gosh, every time I type his name I think of the red-clad dog with a moustache and the comic relief raven squawking on his shoulder) centralised the French state through the threat of force, Prime Minister Walpole centralised the British state with the promise of copious amounts of monies. In the 18th century, while the French leadership was content with ruling an autocratic aristocracy unconcerned with the affairs of petty commoners (attitudes which built up a pressure cooker that would explode into the French Revolution), the British were busily establishing one of the world's first 'Nation plc's, countries run like huge businesses, much like China and Dubai today.
If France had followed this route, and it was possible prior to the renunciation of the Edict of Nantes, then France could have quite easily taken the lead in industrial development.
I think this could be an interesting ATL. Any takers?
Anyway, the point I was trying to get across (badly with my misplaced use of the word 'mercantalist', I admit) was that I wasn't suggesting that centralisation was bad and decentralisation was good. What I was suggesting was that centralisation could still occur, but in a different way. While Cardinal Richelieu (gosh, every time I type his name I think of the red-clad dog with a moustache and the comic relief raven squawking on his shoulder) centralised the French state through the threat of force, Prime Minister Walpole centralised the British state with the promise of copious amounts of monies. In the 18th century, while the French leadership was content with ruling an autocratic aristocracy unconcerned with the affairs of petty commoners (attitudes which built up a pressure cooker that would explode into the French Revolution), the British were busily establishing one of the world's first 'Nation plc's, countries run like huge businesses, much like China and Dubai today.
If France had followed this route, and it was possible prior to the renunciation of the Edict of Nantes, then France could have quite easily taken the lead in industrial development.
I think this could be an interesting ATL. Any takers?
Faeelin
Banned
Why does the king using cast-iron hurt the French people?
Also, the whole point of absolutism was to break the nobility.
Which then proceeded to intervene heavily in the economy.
Hendryk
Banned
Actually it was tried in France during the regency of Philippe of Orléans, but the attempt backfired. The Scottish economist John Law had been hired in 1715 to reform the French economic and financial system, but for various reasons Law only managed to create an inflationary bubble. But it demonstrates that the French leadership didn't shy away either from ambitious reform or hiring foreign talent.
Huh, well there I go. Looks like my argument's been pretty effectively shot out from under me, but it does raise some fairly tantalising possibilities. If the Edict of Nantes had not been revoked, and the Huguenots remained and grew in France to become the source of its economic prosperity, then when Phillipe hires someone to overhaul the finance system, instead of hiring the Scottish John Law, maybe he could have hired a native French protestant, who would supposedly know the country a lot better and plan accordingly?