AHC: French population >250 million by present day.

How can France, with its present day borders have a population of more than 250 million population. (Not ASB but just implausible) I was intrigued since France historically had 3x more population than the British Isles, while now they are basicallt even.

Since countries like India house similar population densities, and its neighbor the Netherlands also do, its not impossible to have a 250 million population France. (Around 420 persons per sq meter for the Netherlands)

There doesn't have to be a "French state" existing, just 250 million living in European France's borders. (551,000 SQ KM according to Wikipedia.) So even Britain ruling over France could work, if the population of the present day territories is over 250 million population.

This population would require European France to house an approximate of 450 peoples per square kilometer.

With a POD not earlier than 1200 AD, how can France have over 250 million population in its present day borders in Europe?
 

Marc

Donor
How can France, with its present day borders have a population of more than 250 million population. (Not ASB but just implausible) I was intrigued since France historically had 3x more population than the British Isles, while now they are basicallt even.

Since countries like India house similar population densities, and its neighbor the Netherlands also do, its not impossible to have a 250 million population France. (Around 420 persons per sq meter for the Netherlands)

There doesn't have to be a "French state" existing, just 250 million living in European France's borders. (551,000 SQ KM according to Wikipedia.) So even Britain ruling over France could work, if the population of the present day territories is over 250 million population.

This population would require European France to house an approximate of 450 peoples per square kilometer.

With a POD not earlier than 1200 AD, how can France have over 250 million population in its present day borders in Europe?

You do realize that France as we know (and some of us love), wouldn't exist?
Sorry, you might as well phrase the idea as how many people can we crowd in the this region of Europe, going with an econometric analysis of resources; sort of like figuring out how much cattle can be run on a particular ranch.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
France,Algeria and Morocco filled with French settler colonies advanced enough could achieve this. And then those countries having majority French people could be annexed.
 
You do realize that France as we know (and some of us love), wouldn't exist?
Sorry, you might as well phrase the idea as how many people can we crowd in the this region of Europe, going with an econometric analysis of resources; sort of like figuring out how much cattle can be run on a particular ranch.

There would be changes but it would still be France. Nor would it necessarily be bad. The Netherlands aren't a Third World pit.
 
250 millions is too high tbh, (non Deccan) India, south China have insane density because of rice, although effective rice padding does require intensive irrigation infrastructure and importantly a much more tropical climate

I think the only part of Western Europe that can reach extremely high densities without industry would be northern Italy, which could be as densely populated as the kanto plains... Easily 50 millions. (As a side note greater Ukraine has the potential to have 300 millions people, and he Mississippi bassin could be as populated as China)

You would have to increase france’s population before the industrial revolution, because even in the best case it’s would be like Germany and then only have 120 millions people by today, and there is no consensus on the forum on the plausibility of it in the first place (IMO france has more han enough land, but I think it would have benefited by more clericicalism, a poorer population, and less stability maybe as a continuing unreformed kingdom of France? - think two Siciles, although you would also have to prevent emigration.)

Avoiding the black death may help, but the population did rebound IRL. No religion war also could help.
 
Last edited:

Marc

Donor
There would be changes but it would still be France. Nor would it necessarily be bad. The Netherlands aren't a Third World pit.[/QUOTE

The Netherlands works because it's overall numbers are relatively small. Density is only one factor.
Which brings up the question, if France has 250 million, what is the overall population of Europe? 2 billion or more? Think modern Germany with 160 million? Think within France, the Île-de-France (Paris region) having around 50 million - sigh.
That kind of population growth simply can't happen in a vacuum. The bane of alternate histories - everything is connected and everything has consequences.
 
The Netherlands works because it's overall numbers are relatively small. Density is only one factor.
Which brings up the question, if France has 250 million, what is the overall population of Europe? 2 billion or more? Think modern Germany with 160 million? Think within France, the Île-de-France (Paris region) having around 50 million - sigh.
That kind of population growth simply can't happen in a vacuum. The bane of alternate histories - everything is connected and everything has consequences.

So what if it does? Europe wouldn't collapse.
 
250 millions is too high tbh, (non Deccan) India, south China have insane density because of rice, although effective rice padding does require intensive irrigation infrastructure and importantly a much more tropical climate

I think the only part of Western Europe that can reach extremely high densities without industry would be northern Italy, which could be as densely populated as the kanto plains... Easily 50 millions. (As a side note greater Ukraine has the potential to have 300 millions people, and he Mississippi bassin could be as populated as China)

You would have to increase france’s population before the industrial revolution, because even in the best case it’s would be like Germany and then only have 120 millions people by today, and there is no consensus on the forum on the plausibility of it in the first place (IMO france has more han enough land, but I think it would have benefited by more clericicalism, a poorer population, and less stability maybe as a continuing unreformed kingdom of France? - think two Siciles, although you would also have to prevent emigration.)

Avoiding the black death may help, but the population did rebound IRL. No religion war also could help.

Europe has industry and could import food from the US. We happily sell to Europe.
 
Europe has industry and could import food from the US. We happily sell to Europe.

Yes but in this case there simply aren’t enough people in the first place, this would require a growth rate comparable to ukraine’s! That’s simply not possible in a country as rich as France. You would have to royally screw it (and as a result most of Western Europe to prevent other powers from just controlling France) centuries before, and no Black Death and stuff.

That or maybe if barbarian invasions are prevented and France becomes the center of the western Roman Empire, it could enjoy 1,500 years of stable infrastructure and immigration.

Just saying, using napoleonic borders fr France (minus Netherlands past the Rhine) makes this challenge somewhat easier - note that it wouldn’t be napoleonic, that’s way too late for this challenge
 
Yes but in this case there simply aren’t enough people in the first place, this would require a growth rate comparable to ukraine’s! That’s simply not possible in a country as rich as France. You would have to royally screw it (and as a result most of Western Europe to prevent other powers from just controlling France) centuries before, and no Black Death and stuff.

That or maybe if barbarian invasions are prevented and France becomes the center of the western Roman Empire, it could enjoy 1,500 years of stable infrastructure and immigration.

Just saying, using napoleonic borders fr France (minus Netherlands past the Rhine) makes this challenge somewhat easier

It would be difficult no doubt but it would still be French if it did happen.
 

Marc

Donor
It would be difficult no doubt but it would still be French if it did happen.

S'il vous plaît, définissez ce que vous entendez par français.

To quote a classic: “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
 

Decius00009

Banned
No, Great Britain (the island) had a population of 10 million (roughly) in 1800. Subtract maybe 3 million for Scotland and Wales, and you have a natural increase in England from about 7 million to about 50 million. That's a 700% increase, give or take (Scotland and Wales were different). France's was about 25 million in 1800. So, with a post 1800 POD somehow, you could have a French population of about 175 million; not to even get into how France produces (and always has produced) massively more food, even allowing for its larger size. No one is really sure why France's population didn't grow much (relatively) in the 19th century; there are a load of competing theories. Go back farther, say, 1700, England's population was maybe 5 million. France's was about 25. You have 250 million right there, without a huge POD. You would require liberalisation of internal trade, no controls over the grain trade (France had huge issues with local famines because they couldn't move food easily), massive adoption of the potato, greater colonial dominance for wealth generation and probably fewer wars, but you could do it. You also have complete, utter and total French domination of Europe; you don't lose that kind of innate military and cultural aggression because you have greater tools to realise it. People these days think Germany used to be aggressive (discount WW2 and it wasn't), but it's tendencies were a pale shadow of France's. And that spoken as an avowed Francophile
 
Last edited:
No, Great Britain (the island) had a population of 10 million (roughly) in 1800. Subtract maybe 3 million for Scotland and Wales, and you have a natural increase in England from about 7 million to about 50 million. That's a 700% increase, give or take (Scotland and Wales were different). France's was about 25 million in 1800. So, with a post 1800 POD somehow, you could have a French population of about 175 million; not to even get into how France produces (and always has produced) massively more food, even allowing for its larger size. No one is really sure why France's population didn't grow much (relatively) in the 19th century; there are a load of competing theories. Go back farther, say, 1700, England's population was maybe 5 million. France's was about 25.

France conducted its first census in 1698 and had 19 million inhabitants. It hit 25 millions by the time of the Revolution.
 

Decius00009

Banned
France conducted its first census in 1698 and had 19 million inhabitants. It hit 25 millions by the time of the Revolution.
Typo, I should have said 22 (still wrong, but closer). Doesn't invalidate the point, though (well, mathematically, it probably does
 
France has 215,029km^2 of arable land and a population of 67.12 million, meaning a ratio of 312 people per km^2 of arable land. Bumping this ratio up to the Japanese ratio of 2,867 people per km^2 of arable land yields a population of 616,488,143.:eek:
 
French population started high but stalled early due to hitting the Malthusian limits. So you have to change those to get any real increase population. A better plough , crops , farming methods etc coupled with railways/canals to transport it to the cities and a means to employ the surplus population are the minimum needed. Its very hard to do that without massive butterflies ie either France just expands or the increase happens to all its neighbors but then you get massive wars as everyone has surplus population.
Getting East Asia population densities is impossible , the weather in Northern Europe will not allow two full harvests ( too cold and/or lack of water ) and resource exhaustion becomes an issue quite early ( only so many trees and mines ).
So about the only way is for France to grab a big chunk of North Africa and export population to the point those areas become French ethically.
 
S'il vous plaît, définissez ce que vous entendez par français.

To quote a classic: “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”

So, you think it would give up its language, culture and art merely because it has a larger population?
 
Europe has industry and could import food from the US. We happily sell to Europe.
Actually, that's not a bad POD. Europe becomes entirely industrial, with no more agriculture.
Everything is imported from Louisiana and the Mississippi basin, colonised heavily by settlers.
The US doesn't exist, or at least nothing west of the Appalachian which become a strategic and tightly knit network of highly productive farmland feeding Europe.

France, maybe to the Rhine becomes the industrial powerhouse
 
Actually, that's not a bad POD. Europe becomes entirely industrial, with no more agriculture.
Everything is imported from Louisiana and the Mississippi basin, colonised heavily by settlers.
The US doesn't exist, or at least nothing west of the Appalachian which become a strategic and tightly knit network of highly productive farmland feeding Europe.

France, maybe to the Rhine becomes the industrial powerhouse

Why would the US have to cease to exist? We can grow a lot more food then we do. The US National Forest and Park Services would have to be smaller, that is all. Also a less industrialized US means LESS food not more. A big reason US farmland is so productive is that the US is heavily industrialized. Modern farming takes modern fertilizer, tractors, pesticides, herbicides and high yield hybrid seed. All that needs industrialization.
 
Last edited:
Top