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.
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.