AHC: France the Hegemon

And by giving them the Rhine as a border they don't have to worry about the pushing east part; they just have to focus on holding down the Pyrenean and Alpine borders.

I'd rather think that if the French centralize as IOTL with the additional benefit of these lands, they'll expand further than IOTL, holding both banks of the Rhine (which they indeed did every now and then with Breisach and Philippsburg, for example).

Particularly if the French succeed in becoming emperors lateron they'll expand into the Rhine valley - at least by strongarming the bishops.
 
The aging Louis XIV. does not fall in love with Françoise d'Aubigné, the later Madame de Maintenon and is thus not influenced by her strong anti-Huguenot views, therefore he's not going to issue the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking the Edict of Nantes, that had granted religious freedom to the very industrious Huguenots, who will ITTL also be allowed to settle in the French North American colonies, where they will enjoy total religious freedom, not just the limited one granted by the Edict of Nantes in the motherland. Both England and Prussia will thus not experience an influx of Huguenot refugees, many of them skilled artisans, to boost their developing industries. The French North American colonies will experience a growth in population at least equal to that of the English ones and will therefore be more able to withstand in the colonial wars of the 18th century.

Being influenced by enlightened Huguenot advisors, Louis XV. and Louis XVI. will allow gradual reforms, thus avoiding the devastating results of the French Revolution. France becomes the first and most industrialised country in the world, enjoying sound public finances, that allow her to entertain the largest fleet in world. By 1800, Britain has lost its last colonies in India to France. Shortly thereafter, a young and dynamic general named Léon Bonaparte conquers the entire North African shore, from Marocco to Egypt for France, within less than a year, the French start the construction of a canal at the isthmus of Suez to be able to reach their ever growing Indian Empire, which by then incompasses Burma and Indochina as well, and their prospering colonies in Australie and Nouvelle-Zélande significantly faster.
 
Why on earth would the Huguenots want to go to a frozen fur trading and farming shithole at the ends of the earth when their skills were all about urban life. If they are made to leave they'll just go to the low countries and England.
 
Why on earth would the Huguenots want to go to a frozen fur trading and farming shithole at the ends of the earth when their skills were all about urban life. If they are made to leave they'll just go to the low countries and England.

I feel the urge to point out that the Puritans chose to do just that, with many leaving the Netherlands...
 
I feel the urge to point out that the Puritans chose to do just that, with many leaving the Netherlands...

The Puritans were fanatics. Most of Huguenots were not.

I think a French victory in the Seven Years' War combined with much greater settlement of New France and Louisiana will get a dominant France. Combine that with gradual reforms to avoid the devastation of the Revolution, and you're set.
 
How about Louis XIV's more sensible about his war-aims in the War of Spanish Succession. He focuses more of his resources on blitzing the Low Countries, while simply holding Prince Eugene's forces in the Alps and defending the Pyrenees. He might be able to get a negotiated settlement in the Low Countries; perhaps he partitions Belgium between Flemish and Walloon areas, with the Dutch taking the North while he takes the south, rather than what happened IOTL and give the Austrians some runt end in the middle of nowhere.

Louis can then get some sort of watered down settlement about Spain-if he'd focused less on actually getting Spain and more on getting the Low Countries, he'd have stood France in good stead a century down the line. No convenient launching pad for Austrian or Coalition invasions, and he finally gets his coveted 'natural frontier' somewhere near-ish the Rhine.

Louis has a more defensible frontier, and his successors can invest in border forts to secure it. Without the Austrians literally on their doorstep, the French can work harder on colonising the New World. Maybe if they get in on India before the British do and really develop their navy so that it can at least fight the British. The French navy wasn't bad by the mid-late 18th century, it was just poorly led, under-manned and suffered from frequent budget cuts. If there was some sort of consistent naval policy (either Louis XV is less incompetent or his chief advisor is less reactionary) then France can be in good stead to control a sizeable colonial empire.

With an Empire and reasonably secure borders, France can then reform itself internally (which wasn't that hard-the revolution did it before Republicanism was even thought of, so it wouldn't be beyond a reformer) and then with its natural demographic supremacy it can keep Germany weak and disunited while playing chess with the Austrians and the British.
 
This is the reason I love French history... They had every chance to become a global hegemon... and squandered every one.

There is a lot of truth in this ...
I wouldn't say, however, that that was completely silly. Remember that France had roughly as many chances to perish, and as scattered over history.



Back to a flourishing France, the following list of initial opportunities comes to my mind:

  • a French king pursues a wedding policy which incorporates Burgundy into France before the Habsburgs do,
  • France conquers most of Burgundy in the late 15th century (rather than just some pieces),
  • Francis I. is elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. Perhaps he reunites "Charlemagne's Empire"?
  • For some reason, the Italian wars are a big and fast success, and France stably dominates (most of) Italy;
  • on the decline of Spain and Portugal,France manages to establish a large and stable plantation somewhere in the Americas, rather than the Netherlands or England;
  • France takes advantage of the Thirty Years War: Sweden somehow gets overstretched, the Catholic alliance is annihilated between Sweden and the Ottomans. Whatever, France manages to completely blast the internal structure of the HRE, and gradually absorbs states of the Empire which it exerts influence on (e.g. Bavaria, Cologne, Palatinate).
  • France wins the struggle for naval predominance in the Mediterranean against Britain (early 19th century) - this keeps Britain from creating significant new colonies and put France in the pole position for a dominant colonial power;
  • Napoleon is not defeated, perhaps dies before he could attack Russia. His successors create a stable rule;
  • France succeeds in gaining influence over much of Latin America after the independence movements in the 1820s.


There were mostly "short-time" chances which lead to a great leap ahead, and quite possibly can put France in the role you want to see. I'm not counting here the accrual of little advantages over a long period - which is also possible under your prerogatives.
 
Although I too think that Nappy is the best chance, another good was was France doing it better in the Spanish succession, or preventing it somehow, doing it well enough can mean a semi-personal union with Spain and a sooner colony expansion for France, maybe it keeps India instead of Britain?

I think the apogee of French power under Louis XIV was well before the War of the Spanish Succession, especially since said conflict came right on the heels of a similarly ruinous war during the decade prior.
 
Personally, I'm skeptical of Napoleon doing well as a means to ensure French supremacy. I have the feeling (and I could be wrong) that whatever ridiculous successes he got, he would not know to quit while he was ahead, and would just end up overextending the French empire, leading to its inevitable collapse. The more gradual expansion of France's borders into the Holy Roman Empire, to the point where it has a useful buffer zone against Prussia and Austria, seems a more realistic path to a stronger France for me.
 
I feel the urge to point out that the Puritans chose to do just that, with many leaving the Netherlands...

EXACTLY - america wasn't their first choice, they left England and went to the Netherlands, until they were kicked out for being arseholish pricks.

The Huguenots wouldn't go to america as a first choice either, and are much less likely to be evicted from places. They had more valuble skills to boot.
 
EXACTLY - america wasn't their first choice, they left England and went to the Netherlands, until they were kicked out for being arseholish pricks.

The Huguenots wouldn't go to america as a first choice either, and are much less likely to be evicted from places. They had more valuble skills to boot.

One thing people overlook is that the Reformation generally reflected the urban/rural divide; cities tended to embrace it whereas more rural areas remained Catholic.

So obviously even with all those virgin lands available in America it wouldn't be easy for the Puritans/Huguenots to settle there; note how urban New England was compared to the rest of the English colonies.
 
Top