AHC: France dropping out

France has always been an important player on political, military, economic, scientific, philosophical, religious, and artistic stages. Even though French predominance in one of these areas only lasted for some time (if at all), this country has upheld a very high level in all these areas practically throughout its history, the past 1100 years. Let me put these considerations like that: France is the most significant country in Europe on average.


It is easy to list factors which have contributed to France's favor in one or more aspects.
But as this is an AH forum, I would like to ask to converse question:

Which developments, roughly between 1400 and 1700, would have lead to a permanently weakened France?

Before you start posting:
No, I am not interested in any military disaster.

And I don't want France disappear as a state; the France of this ATL should still exist and hold, say, 80% of all French speakers.
Sorry, Angevin-Burgundy conspiracies not welcome.

And I do understand that a big meteor dropping on Massif Central or a disease stopped by effective French custom officers would do harm to France.


I find such violent PoDs boring (for the most part).
Just observe the contrary: France didn't join the prime league because of Napoleon's conquests, but Napoleon's campaigns were (among other factors) allowed for by France's excellent general condition.

So what I am really looking for is some silent, slow process which doesn't ruin or destroy France, but gradually and irresistably takes France to the B ranks.

Any thoughts?
 
a stronger Holy Roman Empire for one would keep france in check.

longer drawn out issues with england have the hundred years war turn into the 200 or 300 years war with neither side gaining much ground through most of the conflict. and at the same time the black death creeps in to decimate the population.

have the french wars of religion drag out with Henry IV

then have louis XV die early.

Napoleon gets a splinter in Corsica and dies of an infection at age 12..
 

Typo

Banned
Find someway to keep the French kings from getting firm control over what is now southern France, and France will basically be a larger version of Brandenburg.
 
Find someway to keep the French kings from getting firm control over what is now southern France, and France will basically be a larger version of Brandenburg.

I doubt it since northern France has forever been richer and more populated than southern France. A France only made of northern France might in fact become more powerful in some ways. The Atlantic would be the only maritime facade and the lack of direct land borders with Italy and Spain would avoid conflicts and war. France could very well become a huge Nertherlands in such a scenario, a country based on trade and exploration to a much larger degree than was the case OTL.
 
If France had had weak kings in the 1400-1600s, there were a number of opportunities for powerful vassals who became disgruntled with royal attempts to curtail their powers to rebel and break the King's authority. Then you'd have a state spending most of it's time fighting itself and failing to be effective as an external military power, at least long enough to make sure it was a very late developer. If you used a bit of handwavium to really make the Kings do badly, royal power could even fall to a HRE-like state, but that really would involve the Kings being more of a factor in their own failure than the rebellious vassals, so you might call it pushing the boat too far.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The 30YW was the war which gave France the oppotunity to expand so much. So either kill of the reformation or let the Habsburgs convert. We would likely see the more or less the same border between the HRE and France in 1550 and in 2000 in that case. Through we may see a more centralise HRE be much bigger in the East and South.
 
I very much agree with Falastur as the most doable thing under the given restrictions. The ingredients - a deep confessional division and powerful noble houses - were given and the string of "Civil Wars" up to the early reign of Louis XIV make it quite possible to develop in such a way.

Such a France would still exist as a legal and cultural entity. But it would probably be ripe for some territorial losses or never-happening acquisitions at the rim... Also, foreign interventions from England, Spain, the Netherlands, maybe even Germany/German states would happen periodically.
Maybe it would form a latecoming nation in the 19th century. ;-)

Another idea I had was a far more rigid Catholic dominance after gaining the upper hand over the Huguenots. I mean, full fledged inquisition and such - for a long time, effectively having side-effects on French economical life and the enlightenment.
 
The 30YW was the war which gave France the oppotunity to expand so much. So either kill of the reformation or let the Habsburgs convert. We would likely see the more or less the same border between the HRE and France in 1550 and in 2000 in that case. Through we may see a more centralise HRE be much bigger in the East and South.

Another idea I had was a far more rigid Catholic dominance after gaining the upper hand over the Huguenots. I mean, full fledged inquisition and such - for a long time, effectively having side-effects on French economical life and the enlightenment.

These look like good ideas so far.
However, the first one is still in the political/military field, while the second one is perhaps not as effective as it seems: What did more harm to Spain IOTL, the inquisition or the inflation due to silver from the Americas? I'd say the latter ...
 
I'd agree that what made France so effective was an overall strong line of monarchs even before Hugh Capet - although the Capetians were so effective at setting the roots of French centralization, to the point where I think the worst move the French nobles made was to elect said Capet to the throne.
 
I have a weaker France in my Netherlands TL (in my signiture). Basically, Charles V had a second son, and gave his Burgundian lands to him instead of uniting them with Spain. This new Burgundy/Netherlands has a religious civil war which ends with it converting to Calvinism and adopting a British-like political system (permanent States-General with defined legal powers). Due to being surrounded on two sides (Netherlands and Franche-Comte) by a Calvinist state, Lorraine also converts to Calvinism and its royal family marries into the Dutch one. In return, the Netherlands builds Lorraine up as an anti-French ally and cedes Franche-Comte to it. The French go into several wars with this Netherlands, and they go badly, ending with France loosing Calais.

The end result is a France that still has much of its OTL land area and population, but is essentially cut off from the HRE and somewhat marginalized in European poltics. The Netherlands also gets Brazil and does a lot of its OTL trading activities, and generally replaces France as the post Thirty Years War "center" of Europe.
 
Another option is that duke Philip the Good or duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy, accept a royal crown under suzerainity of the Holy Roman Empire. Such a kingdom would contain all the imperial territories of 'Burgundy', the fiefs of the French crown will initailly remain so, but 'Burgundy' will probably try to add those later in the meantime these will remain in personal union.

This kingdom could be named Lotharingia, Burgundy (could be an elevation of the Franche Comte, although some considered that area to be allodial, which could complicate things), Frisia/Friesland (area claimed by the county of Holland and the duchy of Guelders (Gelre)) or Brabant (an elevation of the duchy of Brabant, the heir of Lower Lotharingia (just as the duchy of Lorraine was the heir of Upper Lotharingia)).
From the emperor's perspective an elevation seems more likely than to bestow a prestigious ''historic'' title like Lotharingia (especially if the duchy of Lorraine isn't a part of the territories of 'Burgundy'), Burgundy (if it would directly refer to the old kingdom of Burgundy/Arles; elevating the duchy of Burgundy would only be possible if it duchy gains full sovereignty and became independent from France (in similar way the fact that the duchy of Prussia had gained full sovereignty from Poland made it possible to become the kingdom in (later of) Prussia)) and even Frisia/Friesland albeit somewhat legendary at the time was considered a historic kingdom, but not in the same way as Burgundy/Arles or Lotharingia.

Anyway IMHO accepting a crown under suzerainty of the empire isn't a Burgundian conspiracy; it is just improving their station.

A kingdom could help to keep these territories under their own dynasty, Charles the Bold's death might be butterflied away.
Such a state, together with the Iberian kingdoms in the south and maybe a strong North Italian state could keep France in check, but it would remain a powerful state.
 
These look like good ideas so far.
However, the first one is still in the political/military field, while the second one is perhaps not as effective as it seems: What did more harm to Spain IOTL, the inquisition or the inflation due to silver from the Americas? I'd say the latter ...

What does more harm in the long run? Receiving an economical blow - or enforcing a mindset which prevents recovery? I'd say the latter.

[Also, IIRC, the silver-inflation concerned, though less harshly, Europe in general]
 
Top