What about the great grey thing at the east? Without talking the yellow one at the south.
The gray thing? There's no united Germany in this period. It's possible one could develop, but why would we presume that?
What about the great grey thing at the east? Without talking the yellow one at the south.
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.
The gray thing? There's no united Germany in this period. It's possible one could develop, but why would we presume that?
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"?
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).
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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).
I was wondering. Does France need to focus on the continent?
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).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.
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?
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 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.