alternate french americas

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
a) Columbus works for France in the 1490s. Let's assume he still takes a southern route and explores the west Indies before returning to Nantes.

Follow on explorers and adventures expand throughout the West Indies and in the 1st half of 1500s conquer the Aztecs.

French "Mehiqueax" would probably be a similar cash cow for France as it was for OTL Spain, with incalculable effects on the French and European economy.

As far as differences are concerned, the French may or may not take a more "academic"attitude toward at least recording and studying native cultures. I think the silver-mining focus of "Mehiqueax" and probably later "Peirou" would mean though there would be a regime of conquest and exploitation for those particular areas and we cannot assume France would use the more native-friendly style of its fur-trade focused North American colonies of OTL.

France, which always sent fewer settlers than England, would also send fewer than Spain to the Caribbean, Mesoamerica and the Andes. They would also probably be less interested in expanding beyond the core mining and plantation areas, with a higher chance of them ignoring the Riviere de la platte (Argentina/Uruguay), Orinoqueax (Venezuela) and Florida, Texas and California compared with OTL's Spanish empire.

It may be hard to seal the Americas off from Calvinist Hugenots, because "outbreaks" of reformist Protestant beliefs may happen among some French colonists in the West Indies and Mesoamerica very shortly after those ideas penetrate France, and before Paris has identified it as a threat to safeguard against.

On the other hand, a French central government swimming in silver might be in a position to crush and expel Huguenots much earlier than OTL.

b) Supposing the history of Columbus and the Conquistadors matches OTL, what if French explorers after Verrazzano stay focused on the eastern seaboard rather than get engrossed in the St. Lawrence Valley and Canada. So Cartier ends up exploring the Chesapeake, Delaware or Hudson Bays. Official French colonies on the Atlantic coast may well preempt similar english efforts and get established in the late 1500s or early 1600s.

The OTL USA east coast would develop with a much smaller European population and extensive French-Amerindian trade ties, especially in the fur trade. More temperate areas will probably somewhat attract more Frenchmen to the Atlantic coast than went to OTL Canada. Particularly in southern colonies where Frenchmen may see possibilities for wealth off of running plantations.

Meanwhile, the English may end up focused continuing on Newfoundland and be the first to penetrate the St. Lawrence, and from there, the American interior. I could picture a land grants for friends of the king in Illinois country for instance.

c) What if the Huguenot colonies in South Carolina (1560s) survived and succeeded. I have trouble determining whether they would be regarded as separate from Catholic France from their very point of origin (perhaps federating w/ Paris after the edict of Nantes, or not), or if, like Puritan and Separatist New England (Plymouth) they would be edgy, resistant but still basically loyal to France.

Huguenot predominance in France's American colonies could make Louis XIV hesitant to totally revoke the edict of Nantes, or he could deliberately encourage French Protestants to feel more welcome in the colonies than home. Even he would probably see it beyond his capabilities to suppress Protestantism totally both in France and the Americas.
 
Anybody like it?

This is a very interesting idea. The biggest question is if the impact of American gold and silver in the French coffers is positive or negative for the Kingdom on long term?
 
Why would France always send fewer settler? And what does Mehiqueax mean? That's really difficult to pronounce in french for a suposed french word.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
rationale for fewer french settlers-

Why would France always send fewer settler?

This is an extrapolation based on the difficulty France had getting settlers to go to New France. England, Spain and Portugal all sent more settlers to the New World than OTL.

Theories as to why this was the case had to do with inheritance laws splitting estates between sons (unlike English primogeniture), and overall greater availability of decent land in France when compared with Britain or the Iberian peninsula.

I did not see a particular reason to assume that France would have alot more people interested in settling abroad in the 1500s as opposed to the OTL 1600s and 1700s.

Maybe there's some reason. Like maybe the wars of religion in the 1500s caused depopulation in France and made land more available in the later centuries. But I've never heard that interpretation.

An alternative explanation for a the smaller number of French New World settlers would say it comes down to the available colonies, rather than the mother country. So, by that logic, Canada was too cold, Louisiana was too distant and rough, and the Caribbean was too unhealthy to attract French settlement to match the level of settlement in the English and Spanish colonies. But, perhaps if the French had possessed the Mexican and Peruvian highlands, or the US atlantic coast, it might have provided many, many more frenchmen the incentive to move to the colonies in the numbers the Spanish or English did in OTL. Was that your thinking Xgentis?
 
So sad that there are so few interested by this idea

The rush for gold and silver will bring far more French mans to the New World... I am wonder if an alternate treaty of Tordesillas could happen dividing the world between France and Portugal (as they were already deeply involved in maritime explorations) and maybe Spain (they will not stay for long outside, only if the new Castile and Aragon will fall apart without the American silver but I doubt...) ?

Anyway, what do you think that will be the financial, military and social effects ?

  • Financial: there will be a huge influx of gold and silver that will finance wars and buildings but also generate inflation. Will this bankrupt the Royaume on the long term ? Will France build up Industries in order to transform the temporary riches into a long term prosperity ?

  • Military: France will win the wars of Italy (controlling most of her), maybe Flanders, Rhineland and Barcelona and surely huge chunks of America (I am not sure that will copy the Spanish pattern). The navy will also became the most bigger and powerful one (a matter of necessity).

  • Social: there will be huge changes, I believe. Traditionally, the French society was not very mobile (who is in France have less reason to emigrated than others). Perhaps the New World will mobilise a lot of people. Will the war of religions be butterfly ? I do not think that the kings of France will abandon the policy of enforcement of Catholicism (the kings of France were semi-divines the descendents of Saint Louis, deeply bond to Catholicism). Still they will have huge resources to crush any resistance.

My opinion is that, in this scenario, j’aurais écrit en français mes commentaires. :cool:
 
Did France really send less settlers than Spain? I always had the impression that Spain actually sent rather few settlers, many of which took local families, though. Subsequently, natural population growth started - much earlier than in other colonies with a much higher starting population.
 
Sorry to put it so, but why insisting so much on the huguenots ? Is it because they are the most compatible with WASPs and that it is unimaginable that North America could be different than mainly protestant ?

The Huguenots were not many (5% of the population). And despite Louis XIV's stupid abolition of the Edict of Nantes, only a minority of Huguenots left France. Most of them stayed in Europe.

France was not like England. Paradoxically, if and in fact because its kingly power was more authoritarian, it was also more tolerant than in England, Spain, HRE (where subjects were forced to take their prince's religion), Italy or Netherlands.

That is not totalitarianism, but the obedience of its subjects was more important for the french king than their religion. That was the specificity and logic of the edict of Nantes, which today's French name "Laïcité" (untranslatable but meaning that in public life there must be no interference of religious opinions because it would be risky for civil peace).
 
Last edited:
Hi Matteo,

I agree with you regarding the number of Huguenots and the concept of laicite.
Still, we should not forget the fact that for many decades France was ripped by civil war between Huguenot, Catholic and King factions. So, even they number was relatively low, the impact of them was big. And the expulsion of them by Louis XIV was a sad loose for France.

More than that, what France missed in the beginning, was people determinate to risk everything by starting a new life far away and the Huguenots are the perfect candidates : they are oppressed at home, and they are more decided to take risks. Even the number is not big... the first colonies were quite small in the beginning. The point was that once the colonies became viable, they can expand and the influx from home (both catholic and protestants) will be bigger.
raharris1973 have very well pointed that the location of OTL French colonies in America was very important for the number of colonist.

Anyway, not this is the point of the discussion. The premise was Columbus worked for France so, once the gold was discover in Mexico and Peru, tons of Frenchs will cross the Ocean, regardless the religion.

The big Question is what will the impact of this for France, Europe, and world ? :confused:
 
Dam!

Another good discussion subject burried under indifference.... :(

I would love to see a timeline or at least some good debates about a Columbus voyage financed by the French crown...
 
And what does Mehiqueax mean? That's really difficult to pronounce in french for a suposed french word.

1) i would bet that's a mistake, and was meant to be Mehiqueaux
Which is silly, since that would be a plural form.
Mehiqueau would make more sense.
2) it would be Mechiqueau, anyway

Edit. The X in Nahuatl (and in period Spanish) was a 'sh' sound in English, 'ch' in French. Which is why Spanish Xeres became English Sherry, the wine. Modern Spanish Jerez.
 
Last edited:
Top