AHC: Revolutionary France Wins

This gets discussed once in a while, I thought I'd bring it back. (There's a long discussion on Napoleon ongoing, but although that has ideas that could be used this is somewhat apart.)

There are three key problems as I see it: demographics, money, and government.

The population of France in 1792 was roughly 28 million people, marginally ahead of Russia (which in 1795 was 29 million) and the third most populous country in the world after China & India. In 1801 29.3 million and the fourth most populous country as Russia edged it out with 33 million in 1800. By 1816 the French population was only 30 million.

IOTL the population was, obviously, used to go out and attempt first safety from absolutist monarchies and then to conquer Europe.

ITTL the population has to be used for something, because France can't support that population for much longer unless you have a much earlier industrial revolution (which France would ideally need most or all of the Austrian Netherlands to help with).

France doesn't have the weight of attractive colonies nor the attitude of sending commoners out to them to absorb that. Absent that we're either back to war, or some kind of European settlement.

Five million + Frenchmen that move out to so-called "natural borders" would probably make the Netherlands, parts of Germany, parts of Italy and so forth majority French and therefore able to be ruled from Paris successfully. If France can continue their 18th century demographic boom for even a little while then it doesn't matter when other countries begin hitting their 19th century booms because half of them will be inter-marrying French.

How much more population nearby states could support successfully is an open question, but even a few decades and the industrial revolution kicks off.


Finances. France was broke. Hence part of the reason for revolution. But France could only pay her bills by going out and plundering stuff. Could Revolutionary France (with a stable parliament and absent a declaration of war against the British) float a bond on London?

Barring that, Amsterdam was still the second finance capital of the world: is there something there in terms of making the Dutch Republic an ally in return for money? If the French are protecting the Dutch and their promises can be believed the Dutch Republic has an opportunity to set their own finances right via reducing military spending and accepting partial French control of their foreign policy.

Plus it's not like being allied with the British at times and fighting the French have helped out the Dutch, it's pretty much been a century long disaster.

Other than that and plunder, the French need time to stabilize finances.


Stable political system. Napoleon was obviously in it for himself and his theoretical kids. What France needs is a George Washington in political terms and Napoleon in military terms. A devoutly Republican Napoleon, Davout, Masséna, Joubert, Moreau, Hoche, Dumas, etc…?

In other words someone who is willing to go out and conquer as much of Europe and destroy the rest if he has to ensure France's victory (Austria, for example, where Napoleon decided not to wipe them out), but also has no interest in setting up a dynasty. It doesn't have to be one person, but certainly the ATL government of France itself needs to be stable and popular enough to resist any successful Napoleon coming back and taking over.

This would probably be helped if Louis XVI was exiled or imprisoned and Robiespierre & Co. are not around in terms of eventual peace.


That's about it, I suppose. There's probably something interesting to be done with the 1848 revolutions and a (partially?) united Europe down the road if one wants to have fun.

Oh, and although I'm sure the British will wildly object to Revolutionary France creating even a partial European hegemony after a certain point there's not much they can do about it. Especially if France doesn't declare war on them and buys even a couple years free from British money backing everybody on the continent.
 
Bump.

Really? Nothing. Poor France. Well I was flipping through the pages looking for this thread and I came across this Federalist France thread (equally languishing, alas).

A federalist revolutionary France that stabilizes the problems I outlined is in perhaps the best last chance for a non-German hegemony over Europe. (I have no problem with a German hegemony but it seems to be pretty common in AH.)

Federalist France solves the "where do excess Frenchmen go" problem, because they move to what would be new provinces of Greater France in Italy, Germany, and the Low Countries.

As always even if one solves the various problems we come back to the British. At what point does a hegemonic Federalist France that's a stable peaceful republic (after her enemies are crushed) with Northern Italy, the Rhineland, Switzerland, parts of Low Countries, a destroyed Austria and Prussia, in alliance with Spain & the Dutch Republic and so on… when do the Brits give up, say screw it, and dominate superFrance through trade?

Heck for all those pro-Federalist British Empire this superFrance gives them a heck of an impetus for major reforms abroad and perhaps some fun colonial adventures to break up the USA (New England FTW :).
 
Wasn't part of the end of the French boom due to Napoleonic inheritance laws?

The rest I don't feel qualified to answer :eek:
 
  1. The Plot of the Rue Saint-Nicaise is successful
  2. France stabilizes as a oligarchical republic under a sans-Napoléon Consulate.
  3. William Pitt doesn't resign as PM; no Treaty of Amiens; Britain and France remain at war in 1802.
  4. The *Battle of Copenhagen is a disastrous defeat for the British, tactically and strategically. The Second League of Armed Neutrality is drawn into the fight on France's side.
  5. Britain is forced to surrender in 1803 or early 1804, with France having achieved all of its revolutionary aims.
 
Federalist France solves the "where do excess Frenchmen go" problem, because they move to what would be new provinces of Greater France in Italy, Germany, and the Low Countries.
Those places weren't exactly empty you know...the LC f.e. already have a very high population density.
 
Wasn't part of the end of the French boom due to Napoleonic inheritance laws?

Due to the way property was divided, yes, because all the men got a piece of the land. (Napoleon also made the divorce laws more conservative then the Revolution had gone for, possibly a counterbalancing factor.)

Also the low emigration of French meant that the same land had to support constantly growing people pre-industrial revolution.

That and various other factors pushed the age of marriage/kids into the mid to late '20s, which as a matter of function and higher use of birth control meant that French families had less kids later.

Meanwhile Germans were marrying at 20 (guy) and 18 (girl) and having lots of kids in the expectation one would inherit, some would emigrate, some would join the army, etc….

Those places weren't exactly empty you know...the LC f.e. already have a very high population density.

True enough. But France is more dense than probably all of those but the Low Countries. Unless enough millions get killed off, they have to go somewhere.

Alternatively if the Revolution can be delayed long enough to get to the industrial revolution going that will start shifting people into cities, just in time to be employed in new factories for the Revolution's wars.


That's not bad at all. The question then can France afford not to plunder in 1803?
 
That's not bad at all. The question then can France afford not to plunder in 1803?

You say that like she won't continue to plunder the conquered territories and satellites states through legal means as opposed to force of arms. Beyond that there is the considerable trade opportunities to be had with the Second League states. And with Britain holding her fleet in the channel and North Sea France will have an opportunity regain the use of her colonial possessions, perhaps (re-)taking some in the process.
 
You say that like she won't continue to plunder the conquered territories and satellites states through legal means as opposed to force of arms.

I meant that once the armies come home they have to be paid. IIRC France certainly couldn't do so at the point Napoleon took over. Can she do so a couple years down the road? I honestly have no idea, but I'm certain some young financial genius can be found in the chaos of the Revolution.
 
Top