AHC: French Naval Domination

Anaxagoras

Banned
Naval strength is based less on manpower and natural resources than it is on reliable financial institutions. The main factor that hindered France from developing as powerful a navy as Britain or the Netherlands was that it lagged very far behind both nations in developing an effective bond market with which to fund a national debt.

If John Law's financial reforms in France in the early 18th Century had not gotten carried away into the Mississippi Company bubble, the good things he had done might have taken root and given France a more solid financial infrastructure for the next century, If that had been the case, France would have had no trouble being both a major land power and a world class naval power.
 

sharlin

Banned
One thing you would need to do is somehow either butterfly away the Revolution or make it a lot more tame. Madame Guillotine decimated the French officer corps, and whilst its easier to train a land soldier to train a captain and all his staff takes a LOT longer and needs experience beyond a classroom.

That self inflicted purge of most of the experienced commanders and the exile of those who didn't loose their heads was a terrible blow to the French navy, one it didn't recover from until the late 1800s or early 1900s.

And later their ship building policy was a bloody mess, especially during the 1900s due to poor doctrine and constantly changing requirements and governments that kept changing the goalposts.
 

mowque

Banned
Naval strength is based less on manpower and natural resources than it is on reliable financial institutions. The main factor that hindered France from developing as powerful a navy as Britain or the Netherlands was that it lagged very far behind both nations in developing an effective bond market with which to fund a national debt.

This is a key fact. Britain was always ahead of it's time in banking, finance and tax collection. Which, as stated above, let it build super-expensive things like navies.

Also, to make it easier, spin off Scotland as an independent nation. Might be easier to reduce the UK then just improve France. But like Anaxagoras said, France needs a sturdier financial system (which can be done).
 
Well, I do want to note here that OTL united Germany managed to build a large navy and maintain a significant army.

But France is short of coal, and with poor access to the Baltic's ship building timber (relevant earlier). And less industrialized compared to Britain.

Besides, why would France suddenly want naval dominion as distinct from continental power?

War of the Spanish Succession ends with the Bourbons victorious, and (somehow) the union between the two lasts, with the French obviously the majority partner. Even assuming colonial losses during the war and in the two hundred odd years since, France now has a massive empire across the waves, which is going to require a massive navy; has no strong opponents left immediately on its borders, which means less spending on the army; and now has access to some rather large coal deposits, which means come the *Industrial Revolution it'll be well poised to dominate the seas and create an empire 'on which the sun never sets.'
 
avoid the french population crisis.

it's big enough for 100 - 120 million people, that's lots of money for new ships and a good enough army.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Except that even while Napoleon was a-conquering on land, Britain was getting richer and richer, and Napoleon had so many enemies that he'd have a lot of trouble facing them all - which sucks up available manpower more readily than conquest provided it.

Meanwhile, a large population =/= a powerful navy. See Russia.

The UK government finances were deteriorating, as can be seen in rising debt levels. If Napoleon can find a peace which leaves him with the Belgium industrial region and maybe parts of Germany, the can fund an adequate size Navy. It would take decades to train the crews and officers up to standard after a peace deal, but it could be possible.

Also, one could just avoid the decline of the French Monarchy in the 1700's. The French Navy had a higher base here than during Napoleon, and if some solution can be found to the internal issues, France has a shot a dominating.
 
The UK government finances were deteriorating, as can be seen in rising debt levels. If Napoleon can find a peace which leaves him with the Belgium industrial region and maybe parts of Germany, the can fund an adequate size Navy. It would take decades to train the crews and officers up to standard after a peace deal, but it could be possible.

Also, one could just avoid the decline of the French Monarchy in the 1700's. The French Navy had a higher base here than during Napoleon, and if some solution can be found to the internal issues, France has a shot a dominating.

Deteriorating? So why is government income rising? Why is the 1793-1815 the period where the least amount of the staggering costs involved (compared to earlier wars) is paid for by loans as distinct from income?

The idea that Britain was on the verge of financial collapse needs work.
 
Deteriorating? So why is government income rising? Why is the 1793-1815 the period where the least amount of the staggering costs involved (compared to earlier wars) is paid for by loans as distinct from income?

The idea that Britain was on the verge of financial collapse needs work.

Well, keep in mind that in addition to paying to maintain and deploy around the world the Royal Navy, some 600 ships and thousands of crewmen, as well as the significantly large British Army to fight in both the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812, Britain also paid for and supplied the Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Prussian, and Austrian armies. So, yes, the British were financially strained.
 
Well, keep in mind that in addition to paying to maintain and deploy around the world the Royal Navy, some 600 ships and thousands of crewmen, as well as the significantly large British Army to fight in both the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812, Britain also paid for and supplied the Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Prussian, and Austrian armies. So, yes, the British were financially strained.

Again, they - relative to the cost of the war - borrowed less than in any previous conflict (about a quarter of the war's costs, the 7YW where they were also spending considerable amounts on subsidies is about one third from loans) in the last century plus change. That speaks of a good financial position, not a shaky one.

Sure, they were spending colossal sums of money, but they could afford to.
 
One thing you would need to do is somehow either butterfly away the Revolution or make it a lot more tame. Madame Guillotine decimated the French officer corps, and whilst its easier to train a land soldier to train a captain and all his staff takes a LOT longer and needs experience beyond a classroom.

That self inflicted purge of most of the experienced commanders and the exile of those who didn't loose their heads was a terrible blow to the French navy, one it didn't recover from until the late 1800s or early 1900s.

And later their ship building policy was a bloody mess, especially during the 1900s due to poor doctrine and constantly changing requirements and governments that kept changing the goalposts.

On the other hand, the existing officers were all aristos, and the purge meant talent played a far higher role in promotions. Of course that took quite a while to work through....
 
On the other hand, the existing officers were all aristos, and the purge meant talent played a far higher role in promotions. Of course that took quite a while to work through....

But you have to have trained officers to promote for promotion by talent to do an good. How do you do that after purging the old crop?
 
But you have to have trained officers to promote for promotion by talent to do an good. How do you do that after purging the old crop?

Why, by winning WW2 via trial and error, that's how :p

They managed it amazingly on land. Which other side in the conflict had such a cluster of great generals? Meritocracy does produce results.

Naval forces are a good deal more technical and specialized, though.
 

sharlin

Banned
Exactly RGB, thats the problem with getting officers for sailing ships.

To get an infantry corps commander or colonel you just needed to read a book, have a rough idea and have men who could bully the troops to motivate them to stand in a line and fire as often as possible or march forwards.

To be a sea captain though, thats something you can't get in a book. Becoming a sailing ships captain takes years of training, going up through the ranks and lots of hard won experience. The french killed that literally with the Terror.
 
Why, by winning WW2 via trial and error, that's how :p

They managed it amazingly on land. Which other side in the conflict had such a cluster of great generals? Meritocracy does produce results.

Naval forces are a good deal more technical and specialized, though.

Yeah. I'm not sure Revolutionary France has a basis for doing what the WWII Soviet Union did.

It certainly failed OTL - although that may be for reasons a good POD could influence.

Sharlin: Can't really get good generals from that, though. I can think of a lot of ways to destroy regiments lead on "move forward and keep firing until you run out of ammunition". Some of them even work IRL. :D
 
Top