A larger French colonial empire in the late 19th/early 20th centuries?

Is not ego, everyone at this point knows the prestige of being a global power and the fact that they can only beat England by expanding oversea, given that if the go Napoleon they would lose any ally and get coalitioned again.

Plus everyone knows that is important to own global resources, is not useless sand, Algeria and Tunisia would important extension of France.

Also its antithetical to the behavior of most empires, France is strong and can flex his muscles by geopolitically expanding in Africa were given 2 other competitors are mostly removed, are limited to Britain and Portugal´s old holdings. Given they would have an existential threat if Britain takes all of their potential colonies, there is no reason to not expand, at least a little.
There's a difference between "expand a little", which they were indeed doing (Brazza, Faidherbe...) and "let's paint the map Blue, white and Red!" which was OTL.

The Brits weren't THAT present before 1870. It was French moves that pushed them to conquer what was left. Same for the Portuguese as they only had coastal holdings with a few mestiso farmers.

Sure they CAN expand in Africa, but without the 1871 traumatism, they don't want to. From the French colonial point of view, it's a very expensive codpiece with some vague rationalisation about civilization and what-not

It was argued by some at the time that countries should try to conquer whatever lands they could, as a sort of investment in the future; a territory that might be worthless in 1880 might turn out to be valuable 50 years later. In a few cases this turned out to be true. The Algerian desert turned out to have considerable oil and gas reserves, for example.
I would say that was post-facto rationalisation. Like when you splurge hundreds on new clothes "that you'll totaly wear all the time, I swear!". If that came up in the 1880's, the machine was well under way
The initial motivations were clearly French prestige and renewal of French blood (although the last bit might just be a bias in my sources, I do love my Lyautey)
 
There's a difference between "expand a little", which they were indeed doing (Brazza, Faidherbe...) and "let's paint the map Blue, white and Red!" which was OTL.

The Brits weren't THAT present before 1870. It was French moves that pushed them to conquer what was left. Same for the Portuguese as they only had coastal holdings with a few mestiso farmers.

Sure they CAN expand in Africa, but without the 1871 traumatism, they don't want to. From the French colonial point of view, it's a very expensive codpiece with some vague rationalisation about civilization and what-not


I would say that was post-facto rationalisation. Like when you splurge hundreds on new clothes "that you'll totaly wear all the time, I swear!". If that came up in the 1880's, the machine was well under way
The initial motivations were clearly French prestige and renewal of French blood (although the last bit might just be a bias in my sources, I do love my Lyautey)
Portoguese had way more than coastal holdings, they had quite well conquered Kongo has far as I recall.

Thing is that is not worthless land, you can turn profit out of it like the Dutch and British did in India, even without going full Leopold on the natives.

The Germans expanded oversea even by being strong in Europe.

The French already went in Mexico, Algeria, Vietnam(and they had plan for Tunisa. They seriously seem not to care about the costs or actually the colony are indeed profitable for them, plus they would see that is relatively easily to push in land in the 70s and 80s and they would naturally want to at least nominally control the land, so maybe you would end up with African kingdoms being vassalized like India if France wants easy time. If France remains an Empire under Napoleon(like I envisioned) I think that they will continue their tendecies, more so when they win in Mexico
 
Last edited:
Portoguese had way more than coastal holdings, they had quite well conquered Kongo has far as I recall.

Thing is that is not worthless land, you can turn profit out of it like the Dutch and British did in India, even without going full Leopold on the natives.
India is a very different place. The French did turn a profit in Indochina but Sub-saharan Africa remained a massive money sink. Leopold was pretty much the only non-white colonies making a profit, precisely because he went full-Leopold on it.

India was extremely rich to begin with, that's why they went there

The Germans expanded oversea even by being strong in Europe.
As a prestige project and after everyone. Can't remember it brought them much

The French already went in Mexico, Algeria, Vietnam(and they had plan for Tunisa.
*Mexico was not a colonial project, they didn't want to administer it.
*Algeria was a settler colony and limited to the coast for a VERY long time. And it's right on the other side of the Mediterranean, easy ride and easy(er) to control from the metropoles.
*Indochina, it took them until 1884 to actually turn Annam and Tonkin into a protectorate. And even that was not made through a central decision, but through an eager local officer in search of glory. They only had the Mekong delta (Cochinchina) before that

They seriously seem not to care about the costs or actually the colony are indeed profitable for them
Oh, they cared a lot about the costs ("La Corrèze plutôt que le Zambèze!") but it was very much seen as a prestige trhing, a display of power. It was also a reservoir for potential recruits in the inevitable war with Germany.
Funding was a very hot topic in parliamentary debates

, plus they would see that is relatively easily to push in land in the 70s and 80s and they would naturally want to at least nominally control the land, so maybe you would end up with African kingdoms being vassalized like India if France wants easy time.
The big problem is that African kingdoms tend to be more... fluid and less well administered than Indian kingdoms. For example in Indochina, they won the war and then co-opted the mandarinal administration, which was well educated.
African kingdoms were way more feudal and couldn't be co-opted in the same way. So, if you go in, you've got to go the full way.
Also, they probably didn't trust black populations to administer themselves tbh

If France remains an Empire under Napoleon(like I envisioned) I think that they will continue their tendecies, more so when they win in Mexico
If you get an earlier PoD, there are way more possibilities of course ;)
 
If you get an earlier PoD, there are way more possibilities of course ;)
The POD was basically from 1815 because I changed many events(and ignored butterflies I found irrelevant).

The big problem is that African kingdoms tend to be more... fluid and less well administered than Indian kingdoms. For example in Indochina, they won the war and then co-opted the mandarinal administration, which was well educated.
African kingdoms were way more feudal and couldn't be co-opted in the same way. So, if you go in, you've got to go the full way.
Also, they probably didn't trust black populations to administer themselves tbh
Well they would just co-opt the kingdom, I mean the Spanish integrated the Mesomaerican and Incan adminstrations under its rule, the French just need the local to accept their rule through their economic influence and military support and supply for their allies.
 
The POD was basically from 1815 because I changed many events(and ignored butterflies I found irrelevant).
My bad then! I like to get my PoDs as late as possible :)

Well they would just co-opt the kingdom, I mean the Spanish integrated the Mesomaerican and Incan adminstrations under its rule, the French just need the local to accept their rule through their economic influence and military support and supply for their allies.
West African kingdoms were not as advanced as the Meso-americans kingdoms. Many possible reasons, including geography, consequences of slave trade...
In that particular time period, West Africa was a bloody mess of proto-feudal warring tribes, but with rifles. If you even look at the empires of the region, none of them lasted more than a couple centuries and all were very fluid.
In that time period you had succession crisis, the Fulani jihad, the impact of European rifle supplies... A bloody mess that was. Nothing strong enough or with enough of an administrative tradition to coopt.

Of course you could stop at the river mouthes and just control trade from there, but then; what if the Brits go inland first? Can't risk that!

Plus the further inland, the greater the commercial profits (and potential kickbacks to Deputés in the parliament), right?
 
My bad then! I like to get my PoDs as late as possible :)


West African kingdoms were not as advanced as the Meso-americans kingdoms. Many possible reasons, including geography, consequences of slave trade...
In that particular time period, West Africa was a bloody mess of proto-feudal warring tribes, but with rifles. If you even look at the empires of the region, none of them lasted more than a couple centuries and all were very fluid.
In that time period you had succession crisis, the Fulani jihad, the impact of European rifle supplies... A bloody mess that was. Nothing strong enough or with enough of an administrative tradition to coopt.

Of course you could stop at the river mouthes and just control trade from there, but then; what if the Brits go inland first? Can't risk that!

Plus the further inland, the greater the commercial profits (and potential kickbacks to Deputés in the parliament), right?
What if they just like Christianized the coast, gave them rifle and said "go and conquer everything"?(of course in a more serious manner), for example them arming the Kongo kingdoms and conquering the basin that way.
 
What if they just like Christianized the coast, gave them rifle and said "go and conquer everything"?(of course in a more serious manner), for example them arming the Kongo kingdoms and conquering the basin that way.
That's basically OTL. Conquest is easy, it's administration that's the killer!

If it's not a Republic, it makes it much easier as it's more geared toward the militaries and a traditional ruler.
As I remember, Algeria was pretty calm before 1870, because it was under military rule. The tribes were ruled by the soldiers that had beaten them, as per tradition. But the IIIrd Republic established a civil administration. Boy, they didn't like that. Ruled by weak civilians? Dishonnor!
 
That's basically OTL. Conquest is easy, it's administration that's the killer!

If it's not a Republic, it makes it much easier as it's more geared toward the militaries and a traditional ruler.
As I remember, Algeria was pretty calm before 1870, because it was under military rule. The tribes were ruled by the soldiers that had beaten them, as per tradition. But the IIIrd Republic established a civil administration. Boy, they didn't like that. Ruled by weak civilians? Dishonnor!
How did the Urban Algerians react to the change?
 
Top