AHC: French population >250 million by present day.

Well it does work to explain maybe pre-1800 patterns, France was already one of the most advance country in the agricultural sector, one can't expect France to really be much stronger on that front, the deal is the 1800-2000 period and also the borders of the French state, you need a very expansionistic France, especially considering that England was pretty reliant on foreign food supply as was Germany during the late industrial era.

1800-1945 specifically. Since WWII France's population has grown a fair amount.

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

Well, Prussia was once described as "an army with a state". Both nations were expansionist when they had (or thought they had) a military advantage.
 
1800-1945 specifically. Since WWII France's population has grown a fair amount.

Well, Prussia was once described as "an army with a state". Both nations were expansionist when they had (or thought they had) a military advantage.

It was a common description of Protestant states, a English diplomat used the precise same description of Denmark in 1693. Protestant states could afford bigger armies (thanks to stronger central government and princes who owned a bigger percent of the land) , and had to create such massive armies to not become irrelevant international actors.
 
1800-1945 specifically. Since WWII France's population has grown a fair amount.



Well, Prussia was once described as "an army with a state". Both nations were expansionist when they had (or thought they had) a military advantage.
Even for the 1945-2015 period France could have a fertility of above 2.1 which would have allowed growth without migration even.
 
Northern France is a fantastic agricultural region.

Today the lands within France's 1804 boundaries have 90+ million people.

If you avoid the invasion of Spain but keep the other lands from France's 1812 boundaries (Lazio, tuscany, Piedmont, Liguria, Dalmatia, Upper Croatia, Slovenia, Istria, Netherlands, Umbria, parts of lower Saxony, and the Ionian Islands) you get to around 150 million people.

Algeria gets you to 190 million people.



Tbh, if you industrialize France more and don't prop up small farmers (ergo fewer bigger farmers) you'd probably have a much larger population. French agriculture is remarkably backwards due to protectionism.
 
Last edited:
Well it does work to explain maybe pre-1800 patterns, France was already one of the most advance country in the agricultural sector, one can't expect France to really be much stronger on that front, the deal is the 1800-2000 period and also the borders of the French state, you need a very expansionistic France, especially considering that England was pretty reliant on foreign food supply as was Germany during the late industrial era.

France continued to expand agricultural land well into the 20th Century. It could certainly keep growing at a much faster rate with continued population growth rates throughout the 19th Century. With industrialisation increasing wealth they could then import food into the 20th.
 
To someone living in the Netherlands, France seems so extremely empty in many places. Driving from orleans to Toulouse one encounters in 500 km only one sizable city, Limoges. And it is incredible that the biggest cities in a departement like the Ardeche, Aubenas and Privas, have 10.000 habitants, in many parts of Europe they would be called villages.

Still the country is lush and green looks like it coukd support much more people

Try the US, west of the Mississippi to the West Coast there are many areas where you can go hundreds of KM in all directions without hitting a single city.
 
Try the US, west of the Mississippi to the West Coast there are many areas where you can go hundreds of KM in all directions without hitting a single city.

That's less surprising considering the US is an ex-settler colony and a lot of that land in the west is marginal if not desert. Australia has even more empty land.

There is no obvious reason why France went from being one of the most densely populated countries in Europe to one of the least in the last 200 years.
 
That's less surprising considering the US is an ex-settler colony and a lot of that land in the west is marginal if not desert. Australia has even more empty land.

There is no obvious reason why France went from being one of the most densely populated countries in Europe to one of the least in the last 200 years.

I didn't say it was surprising , just that it was empty.
 
The emptiness of France is a big reason for the discontent of the yellov vests with rising costs.
In Holland I did not have a car until my 35th because train and buslines are so dense and frequent and I could take my bicycle on a train.
In France we go often to Montbrun les Bains on the border of Vaucluse and Drome. Public transport ends at Vaison la Romaine 30 km away. If you are poor and need a cheapvsuoermarket like a LIDL you have to drive to Vaison too.
So having a car it is not a luxury in France but a necessity to go anywhere and do anything. That’s why rising fuel costs trigger so much anger.
 
Try the US, west of the Mississippi to the West Coast there are many areas where you can go hundreds of KM in all directions without hitting a single city.

Everything is about perspective.

This past year I did a road trip up from San Diego to San Fran and coming from a Canadian it was actually quite nice how many full size towns/cities I passed along the way. Makes sense seeing as the state has a bit bigger population than Canada in a much smaller area.
 
Everything is about perspective.

This past year I did a road trip up from San Diego to San Fran and coming from a Canadian it was actually quite nice how many full size towns/cities I passed along the way. Makes sense seeing as the state has a bit bigger population than Canada in a much smaller area.

Did you go up the 101 or the 5 for your trip?
 
Top