A Less Terrible French Empire?

Boom. They win the war with the Netherlands in the 1670s. That knocks out the Dutch.


I don't get why you think geography is destiny for France, but have argued elsewhere that China's problems were predominantly cultural.

Which doesn't do diddly to deal with the English, and the Dutch ports/seas are relatively shallow (a problem if France is using those as bases).

As for the other part of your post:
I'm not saying it is destiny. France is in a difficult position if it wants to be a maritime power, or the continental hegemon (although that's a separate discussion) geographically.

China is in a different position, so the issues interfering with French seapower don't interfere with it.

I know that you like picking arguments (and rarely responding to questions when someone asks you about why you said something), but I don't get why you're seeing https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5802371&postcount=2 as arguing anything about "destiny" - just the problems that have to be faced.
 
The gray thing? There's no united Germany in this period. It's possible one could develop, but why would we presume that?

An united Germany isn't required to be a trouble. Battle of Bouvines was France against England and HRE.

Not talking of course about the Eastern Francia bullying up to 1000.
 
Just thought I'd say thanks to all who have made the time to comment and kept this discussion alive for the past 3 pages. I've been watching the discussion with interest and look forward to other ideas you guys will have.


You do realise this is a pretty weird statement. It's like saying that a Jaguar is a great car but compared to a Rolls-Royce it's a bit of an embarrassment. How is being number 2 "terrible"?

Bad analogy. France was #2 but you have to look past that simple number. They were far behind the British in population, land area, and productivity. To give you an example the British had a colonial population of 390 million in 1914 compared to just 50 million in the French colonies. Perhaps a hypothetical analogy works best here. Imagine two runners. One finishes in exactly 1 minute. The other at 7.8 minutes. While France was technically 2nd, it was a 2nd place that was really far behind.
 
Let's see what I can do here.

Perhaps in the sixteenth century England falls into a religious civil war, whereas France gets the protestant revolution from above, which doesn't please the Catholic population, or satisfy the more extreme protestants. This gives France a large number of potential emigrees.

With France more protestant, there is a religious dimensuon to the struggle with Spain. France aids the Dutch in their revolt, but annexes Belgium in the meantime, which eventually will draw them into conflict.

England and Scotland do not combine. Both remain mixed confessionally, but England retains a catholic monarch with limited power, whereas the Scots monarch has to be protestant.

French settlers go for N. America in larger numbers, although there are still Dutch and English (and later Scottish) colonies. Modern USA and Canada are much more a patchwork of colonies.

There's a long struggle with the Dutch in the late 17th/18th century. The French never succeed in conquering the Netherlands (or at least, not for long) but may take more of the colonial empire.

England is never such a strong maritime or commercial power, and does not get a tradition of alliance with the Dutch in the 18th century. France wins more influence and treaty ports in India. These extend in to conquering the hinterland for the same reasons as the BEIC OTL.

With Belgian coalfields, France is much better placed for an earlier industrial revolution, and always had a slightly higher population than OTL.

Regards

R
 
Which doesn't do diddly to deal with the English, and the Dutch ports/seas are relatively shallow (a problem if France is using those as bases).

That's true. But England has not always been a fearsome maritime power, as even you'd recognize.

England is also not the equal of France in this period populationwise. There's a reason it took grand alliances to hold the France in the latter half of the 17th century, or why Napoleon could march into Moscow.

I guess I'm just staggered at the lack of imagination in this thread. Nobody's asking what a france with a Dutch financial system would be capable of, for instance. Instead it's this weird vision of a weak France which was incapable of any expansion overseas, even though as Flocc points out they had an enormous empire OTL.
 
Bad analogy. France was #2 but you have to look past that simple number. They were far behind the British in population, land area, and productivity. To give you an example the British had a colonial population of 390 million in 1914 compared to just 50 million in the French colonies. Perhaps a hypothetical analogy works best here. Imagine two runners. One finishes in exactly 1 minute. The other at 7.8 minutes. While France was technically 2nd, it was a 2nd place that was really far behind.

Thats simply because Britain managed to secure dominance over India in an era when France was totally distracted at home by the Revolutionary wars. Right up to that moment they were still reasonably on par in India- Britain had the edge but France was still effectively concluding alliances with Indian powers to oppose Britain by proxy.

It's not that the British Empire was that fantastic- it was that India alone was a disproportionately huge chunk of the human race and a historical accident allowed Britain to get the subcontinent firmly in her sphere as opposed to SE Asia which remained divided among the spheres of the Powers.
 
That's true. But England has not always been a fearsome maritime power, as even you'd recognize.

Even me? What's that supposed to me?

Relevant to this thread:
England is very unlikely to not develop at least some level of significant naval power - not necessarily be THE naval power, but certainly its in England's best interests to ensure the wooden walls stand strong.

England is also not the equal of France in this period populationwise. There's a reason it took grand alliances to hold the France in the latter half of the 17th century, or why Napoleon could march into Moscow.

But that doesn't automatically translate into France being this kind of power in particular, as distinct from successful to a greater or lesser extent at what was OTL's strategy (and picked as such for good reason).

I guess I'm just staggered at the lack of imagination in this thread. Nobody's asking what a france with a Dutch financial system would be capable of, for instance. Instead it's this weird vision of a weak France which was incapable of any expansion overseas, even though as Flocc points out they had an enormous empire OTL.

Weak France? The argument about France not being able to meet this seems "preoccupied France" by (primarily) me and Dunois with "not interested France" by LSCantilla.

"France was weak!" seems to just Stars and Stripes bemoaning France being a distant second OTL.
 
"France was weak!" seems to just Stars and Stripes bemoaning France being a distant second OTL.

Actually I quite agree with the concept that France was just too preoccupied on the continent. What I said was that France had such opportunity to succeed but failed either by conflict with Britain or simply ignoring potential places. France itself was by no means weak, but its empire was all to small for the homeland's strength.
 
Actually I quite agree with the concept that France was just too preoccupied on the continent. What I said was that France had such opportunity to succeed but failed either by conflict with Britain or simply ignoring potential places. France itself was by no means weak, but its empire was all to small for the homeland's strength.

True. I'm just saying your comments on it being such a distant second are as close as anyone has come to "France was weak".

I think Faeelin is just being contrary for contrariness's own sake, since he hasn't mentioned how a Dutch financial system for France would create a more effectively colonial/naval France either.
 
I think Faeelin is just being contrary for contrariness's own sake, since he hasn't mentioned how a Dutch financial system for France would create a more effectively colonial/naval France either.

Surely this is obvious?

France, despite its superior population and the fact that it was a rich nation, was hobbled in its wars with Britain because the British state could draw on a better developed financial system. It had a more dynamic economy which let it construct a larger navy, it had a more mobile population which let it send more people to the new world, etc.

A france with a more "modern" fiscal apparatus and economy in the 17th and 18th centuries would be commensurately stronger. This would let it expand overseas more than OTL as well as fight more effectively on land.
 
Surely this is obvious?

France, despite its superior population and the fact that it was a rich nation, was hobbled in its wars with Britain because the British state could draw on a better developed financial system. It had a more dynamic economy which let it construct a larger navy, it had a more mobile population which let it send more people to the new world, etc.

A france with a more "modern" fiscal apparatus and economy in the 17th and 18th centuries would be commensurately stronger. This would let it expand overseas more than OTL as well as fight more effectively on land.

The problem - that is, why I'm saying that this won't suddenly change things - is that there's no reason why a better financial system is going to mean France doesn't just continue focusing on the continent and away from maritime concerns (assuming that this better financial system doesn't translate into/come from a better developed maritime sector).

What's the use to the navy of making 20% more money if that goes into the army?

Sure, a France with that could do better, all things being even, but would it even bother?
 
I was wondering. Does France need to focus on the continent? If I think about it, there realy wasn't a big need, besides expansionism. If we look at the north there is the Dutch republic who was not expansionist. In the east there were the disunited Germany and Italy and non expansionist Switserland and to the south (and north) Spain. Ok, Spain was an enemy and rather expansionist, if not territorial than at least in influence. But the moment Spain's power collapsed and French power (and stability) grew, Spain wasn't that dangerous anymore. If France would have decided to ignore their so called natural borders and would have coöperated with the Netherlands and other (smaller) neighbouring countries against their biggest rivals (England and Spain), I believe France could have become a big coloniser, without having to fear much on the continent. The reason everybody was ganging up against France was because French expansionism more or less forced them too.
 
I was wondering. Does France need to focus on the continent? If I think about it, there realy wasn't a big need, besides expansionism. If we look at the north there is the Dutch republic who was not expansionist. In the east there were the disunited Germany and Italy and non expansionist Switserland and to the south (and north) Spain. Ok, Spain was an enemy and rather expansionist, if not territorial than at least in influence. But the moment Spain's power collapsed and French power (and stability) grew, Spain wasn't that dangerous anymore. If France would have decided to ignore their so called natural borders and would have coöperated with the Netherlands and other (smaller) neighbouring countries against their biggest rivals (England and Spain), I believe France could have become a big coloniser, without having to fear much on the continent. The reason everybody was ganging up against France was because French expansionism more or less forced them too.

France doesn't need to, no. Although a heavy colonizer/overseas expander France isn't going to be seen as that much better than one battling in Europe - there's not enough fat, juicy colonies to go around.
 
The problem - that is, why I'm saying that this won't suddenly change things - is that there's no reason why a better financial system is going to mean France doesn't just continue focusing on the continent and away from maritime concerns (assuming that this better financial system doesn't translate into/come from a better developed maritime sector).

Okay, I think we are talking past each other, and viewing this as an either/or thing.

I'm not convinced; Spain's power came to a large extent from having new world colonies, and Britain's colonies were only significant because it could stop a hegemonic European power from arising.

Now it's possible a more efficient France would simply do better on the continent. But IMO a more powreful France in Europe will dominate the rest of the world by default, no?

(I'm presuming an early modern POD of some sort).

What's the use to the navy of making 20% more money if that goes into the army?

Sure, a France with that could do better, all things being even, but would it even bother?[/QUOTE]
 
I was wondering. Does France need to focus on the continent?


No, but then again you could say the same thing of Britain and her colonies. Concentration of the continent wasn't needed, but it was most advantageous. If France focused on the colonial game she would run into Britain, who had a stronger navy that she could concentrate where ever she wished, as opposed to France who had to split her navy.

The continent meanwhile, was full of weak states or falling powers. It was the perfect place for France to concentrate on as it was right next to her, already reasonably developed {in general}, and could provide little resistance.

When the other European states {Italy, Germany} were strong enough to be a threat France was now forced to concentrate more on the continent. That didn't really end until the Franco-Prussian war. After that France went on a colony shopping spree to try and recoup some national pride. But still, her own geography kind of limits her ability to participate in colonies.

If you really want to see a stronger French Empire, domination of the Med is the only place to go, I think. Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco were already hers. A strong alliance with Italy {maybe if France agreed to Italian requests for partition of Tunisia}, might see French ships in Italian harbors. The main thing, I think, would be for France to keep Britain away from Egypt. France was already heavily invested in Egypt, financially and culturally {if that makes sense}. Keep Egypt in France's sphere, and she could be a bigger player in the Med.

Of course I could be totally wrong.
 
No, but then again you could say the same thing of Britain and her colonies. Concentration of the continent wasn't needed, but it was most advantageous. If France focused on the colonial game she would run into Britain, who had a stronger navy that she could concentrate where ever she wished, as opposed to France who had to split her navy.
I disagree with this. The English navy wasn't that dominant during the 16th-18th century. During the 17th century the Dutch navy was stronger and during the 18th century the GFrench navy wasn't that far behind the English. If the French would focus more on their navy and less on their army they could beat the English, certainly if the had strong naval allies (like the Spanish or Dutch).

The continent meanwhile, was full of weak states or falling powers. It was the perfect place for France to concentrate on as it was right next to her, already reasonably developed {in general}, and could provide little resistance.

True, it was relatively easy for France to expand, although a lot harder than France hoped it was. They never managed to get the Southern Netherlands or the German Rhineland after all. But this was also true for, for example, the Netherlands. They could have expanded into Germany too, if theyhad wanted. The German parts next to it basicly were ruled from Amsterdam, but it never cared about expansion that way. It focussed on their colonies. The thing you have to do is switch the French focus towards the colonies and use soft power towards the continent. Lorraine was in the French sphere of influence long before it became French. Become allied with the Dutch against the English and/or Spanish for example. That way France can focus more on colonies. I could easily see a French India, a bigger Frenchnorthern America, a larger presence in South America and the carribean, etc. Sure expension within Europe is/seems easier, but focus on the colonies can be very profitable too.
 
Okay, I think we are talking past each other, and viewing this as an either/or thing.

I'm not convinced; Spain's power came to a large extent from having new world colonies, and Britain's colonies were only significant because it could stop a hegemonic European power from arising.

And those are countries in different positions than France, with landward expansion being less practical/desirable.

Now it's possible a more efficient France would simply do better on the continent. But IMO a more powreful France in Europe will dominate the rest of the world by default, no?

Possibly, or it could simply conquer more landwardly the way it took say, Lorraine.
 
If the French would focus more on their navy and less on their army they could beat the English, certainly if the had strong naval allies (like the Spanish or Dutch).

Perhaps, but they wouldn't focus on their navy with easy pickings on the continent.

And even if the continental powers were stronger, all that would mean is that France would be forced to focus more on continental matters.

It simply doesn't have the option of Britain to seriously focus on naval expansion. Maybe if we go waaaay back, and keep Northern France under English rule after the Hundred Years War and keep France a smaller power that faced the Med, maybe it could happen then. But once again, you'd have to deal with Spain and that would require a large standing army, although I'd imagine in such a scenario Spain would be more focused on England.

Really though, I couldn't even count the butterflies from this. :p
 
The problem I have with this argument is that it's not like Spain didn't have continental ambitions. It fought in the Italian wars too; it tried to suppress the Dutch Revolt; it invaded North Africa.

Nobody wants to suggest that France's government and leadership were the problem.

Spain could rely on American Silver to finance its expansionism, a "blessing" which was not available to France at the same time whose economy was inferior compared to Britain and the Netherlands at that time. I don't mean a quantitative inferiority, but rather a qualitative one, since there was no real banking system in France at that time and agricultural productivity was lagging behind.

French leadership has always been divided between overseas expansion and continental expansion. Louis XIV could have done far more to support the colonisation of Canada for example and so could have many other sovereigns of the period.
 
Top