AHC: Equalize French and British colonialism

Sevarics said:
Have French people actually want to move to the colonies
Actually always wondered about that. The Brits seemed way more oriented toward settlement than the French, except for Algeria and even then...

Why such a big difference?
 
Actually always wondered about that. The Brits seemed way more oriented toward settlement than the French, except for Algeria and even then...

Why such a big difference?
Because France was a good place to live*? That was a major reason why the Netherlands had so little colonists and people actualy moved to the Netherlands instead of away from it. Simply put, if you have a good life, you are not going to move to some backwater on the other end of the globe.



*assuming you weren't protestant
 

Delvestius

Banned
Actually always wondered about that. The Brits seemed way more oriented toward settlement than the French, except for Algeria and even then...

Why such a big difference?

The French didn't have religious minorities powerful enough to secure a charter of settlement, nor an impoverished ethnicity to take advantage of, hence why all their early colonies were fur and sugar outposts with just a couple hundred traders. The British had the really rich Puritans and really poor Irish.
 
Because France was a good place to live*? That was a major reason why the Netherlands had so little colonists and people actualy moved to the Netherlands instead of away from it. Simply put, if you have a good life, you are not going to move to some backwater on the other end of the globe.



*assuming you weren't protestant

Actually those French who lived in New France had a better quality of life than those living in France itself.
 
The French didn't have religious minorities powerful enough to secure a charter of settlement, nor an impoverished ethnicity to take advantage of, hence why all their early colonies were fur and sugar outposts with just a couple hundred traders. The British had the really rich Puritans and really poor Irish.

France granted religious, political and military autonomy (for awhile, anyway) to the Huguenots in the Edict of Nantes. The fact that they wielded this influence probably discouraged their emigration. Only when conditions became intolerable did they start to leave, and by that point the French crown was no longer interested in establishing proprietary colonies, so they went to other countries.

I think it was more an issue of differing political approaches taken by the respective crowns. James I and Charles I granted no concessions to the Puritans at home but allowed them to emigrate and found colonies. In the first half of the 17th century, it was difficult to live as an English Puritan, so they emigrated in large numbers. Conversely, when Puritans gained more freedom later on, they emigrated less.

If you have Richelieu decide in 1629 (following the last Huguenot revolt) to reverse course and follow the English plan - no toleration at home but toleration abroad - there'd probably have been considerable Protestant emigration to New France. Or if you have James I continue the reform of the English church to make it more Puritan, the Puritans may choose to stay at home and the English colonies' population never becomes all that large.
 
Last edited:

Zek Sora

Donor
The French didn't have religious minorities powerful enough to secure a charter of settlement, nor an impoverished ethnicity to take advantage of, hence why all their early colonies were fur and sugar outposts with just a couple hundred traders. The British had the really rich Puritans and really poor Irish.

So, could it work if the French persecute the Bretons a lot more than OTL?
 
*assuming you were a member of one of the seigneur families in New France

No, actually. At least according to the book, American Colonies: The Settling of North America, inhabitants of New France as a whole lived a better quality of life than the French themselves. Louisiana is a different story, however.
 
Yes the issue of French wanting and needing to settle abroad was a big difference. The largely fertile land in France was generally divided amongst all children, allowing the people to generally eke out at least a subsistence level existence Much larger numbers of French settled in the wealthier Caribbean colonies than in North America due to the chances for wealth there. The British & Irish preferred the Caribbean too, especially before 1700, but they began to migrate in large numbers to the Southern Colonies especially during the 18th century. New England received relatively few of the migrants from England during the 1600-1760 period with less than 5% of the total, but they grew at a far higher rate than in the Caribbean where the white population's growth was negative and in the Southern colonies where there was no natural growth until around the independence.

At the other end of the spectrum is tiny drought-prone Portugal, on the periphery of Europe where the poor had little option but to settle overseas. Around 300,000 of the total went to Asia before 1700, but in Goa around half of the Portuguese would die within their first two years in India. The migration to Brazil between 1700 and 1760 numbered some 600,000 and became so acute that the Portuguese government began restricting settlement overseas. Spain had long restricted settlement overseas, requiring permits and forcing all settlers to sail from Seville, accounting for Andalusians outnumbering all other groups of settlers.

1400-1760
Portugal 1,460,000
Great Britain & Ireland 746,000
Portugal 1,460,000
Spain 678,000
France 100,000
Germany 97,000
Netherlands 20,000
 
New England received relatively few of the migrants from England during the 1600-1760 period with less than 5% of the total, but they grew at a far higher rate than in the Caribbean where the white population's growth was negative and in the Southern colonies where there was no natural growth until around the independence.

The bulk of New England settlers arrived during a critically early period - 1620-1642. They gave the English colonies a large demographic advantage over their French and Dutch neighbors, which they never lost.
 

It's

Banned
Except that, unlike the Irish, the Bretons didn't have a specific identity separated from that of the rest of French peasants and burghers.

I thought the Bretons are a Celtic people in France and, unlike the Irish, are the only Celtic group in the national entity of which they were a part. Perhaps an even more pronounced separate identity on his basis.
 
I thought the Bretons are a Celtic people in France and, unlike the Irish, are the only Celtic group in the national entity of which they were a part. Perhaps an even more pronounced separate identity on his basis.

You'd be right but the circumstances of unification make it closer to Scotland/England. It was a union sealed by marriage, not conquest. Plus, there never was such a big divide in religion as with England/Ireland. So even though there is some semblance of separate identity, it's not like Ireland :)
 
I thought the Bretons are a Celtic people in France and, unlike the Irish, are the only Celtic group in the national entity of which they were a part. Perhaps an even more pronounced separate identity on his basis.

Breton culture is, and was by 1000, virtually identical to the rest of northern French culture, excluding the Welsh language. It's that it only formally became a part of France in 1532 that makes it so special. I think you'll need to have a Viking Age 200 years earlier to move more Brythons to Armorica.
 

Delvestius

Banned
France granted religious, political and military autonomy (for awhile, anyway) to the Huguenots in the Edict of Nantes. The fact that they wielded this influence probably discouraged their emigration. Only when conditions became intolerable did they start to leave, and by that point the French crown was no longer interested in establishing proprietary colonies, so they went to other countries.

The Puritans were the economic powerhouse of Parliament, a status Huguenots never achieved and probably wouldn't have in such a strongly Catholic nation.


P.O.D after 1648 punk.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
America goes independent in 1776 per OTL, this time gaining all of Canada. The Napoleonic Wars are then much worse, with almost all American territories pulling a Haiti. France invades Britain, and their Indian territories collapse. France eventually loses, but Britain doesn't benefit from it. This leads to a general decline in both France and Britain, giving way to the rise of powers such as Germany. By the end of the 19th century, all that France or Britain have is a few holdings in Africa of about equal value.

Nice creative job. Not sure you even need France to invade the UK, just have a much more competitive naval war combine with the collapse of British India as the UK pulls out support in panic over invasion.
 
Oh, what about a successful Panama Canal built by Lesseps? I know the one they wanted to build had a lot of issues but maybe they come to their senses and build something closer to OTL (is it technologically possible?)

That gives them a massive economic push as well as easier dominance over Eastern Asia. For reference, project was accepted by the parliament in 1879, early enough to carve a bit more of the East. Oh my, that would give them a massive advantage over the UK and could help them assert dominance over China and Japan (not talking full on colonisation but what about a Japanese Protectorate, mostly limited to trade rights and foreign politics with little political involvement?).

Would also help with the settlement of Indochine. It seems like a relatively attractive location to settle but it was very far away from the Métropole after all.
 
I thought the Bretons are a Celtic people in France and, unlike the Irish, are the only Celtic group in the national entity of which they were a part. Perhaps an even more pronounced separate identity on his basis.

Depends on how you define both 'Breton' and 'Celtic. A geographical (and perhaps also democraphical) majority of Bretons at that time spoke Gallo, a langue d'oïl, and not Breton.

It is, of course, feasible that one could get (with a good POD) a more distinct Breton self-consciousness. But it probably would not, considering the intellectual mores of the time, be based on language or ethnicity.
 
Top