Antarctic France Timeline: a French Southern Cone in America.

Otherwise, I wonder, in your opinion, what is the maximum number of inhabitants that Antarctic France could theoretically support? Knowing that the country is about 4.5 million km2 (a little less than 60% of the area of the contiguous United States). 300 million?
 
Last edited:
Otherwise, I wonder, in your opinion, what is the maximum number of inhabitants that Antarctic France could theoretically support? Knowing that the country is about 4.5 million km2 (a little less than 60% of the area of the contiguous United States). 300 million?
The Pampas are among the best farmland in the world, so I think the carrying capacity could be significantly higher than that. Not that France Antarctique would have a population as large as its carrying capacity, but I think 300 million would be a reasonable high-end guess for France Antarctique's population in the present day, factoring in both natural growth and mass European immigration. 250 Million is my middle-gound estimate.
 
Last edited:
I just found this timeline. As an Argentinian, I must say that any TL that makes us better than the shithole we’re today is good in my book.

Judging by the map of modern day Antarctic Republic, it has enough deposits of Coal and iron to decently industrialize.
 
Part XVI: "The Conquest of the Desert".

The southern tip of the American continent was discovered in 1520 by the Portuguese explorer Magellan, who gave his name to the cape. In 1584, the Spaniards even tried to set up colonies near Cape Magellan, but the Spanish settlers did not survive the winter and died of starvation in a region that is particularly inhospitable to humans. Indeed, a vast desert in the literal sense of the word (twice the size of metropolitan France) stretches from Cape Magellan to the fertile plain of the colony of Bonaire. This region is called "Patagonia" or "land of the Patagonians": an Amerindian tribe that Magellan met at the same time as he discovered the cape, and whose men would have been giants (some would have been more than 4 meters high !).

In the west of Patagonia, the Andes mountain range is right on the sea as in Norway, the coastline is entirely made up of fjords so European ships, in the 18th century, could not dock anywhere. The south-east of Patagonia is a vast, cold, rocky, desolate plain without any vegetation. The northeast of Patagonia, where the plain becomes much more grassy and populated with animals, is the only relatively acceptable part of Patagonia...

But despite the climate and the aridity of the region, the French colonization of Patagonia, in a permanent way, has started as early as the second half of the 18th century. Indeed, by virtue of the Treaty of Madrid of 1750 (which had recognized the sovereignty of France over the entire Southern Cone down to Cape Magellan), Patagonia was a de jure territory of the Antarctic France.

By the middle of the 18th century, the cod trade had become extremely profitable for the British, who had a hegemony over the fishing resources of the North Atlantic. Cod was "British gold", but the French also wanted to compete with the British and sell their own fish on the European markets. So, in the early 1760s, the administrators of the colony of Bonaire decided to recruit fishermen from Brittany and settle them on an archipelago off the coast of Patagonia. The fishermen came from the city of Saint-Malo, and so the archipelago has been called the "Malouines Islands".

A first village of several dozen fishermen has been built east of the Malouines archipelago, the village has been named "Port-Cartier" in memory of the 16th century explorer Jacques Cartier. From the 1760s to the 1780s, other fishing villages were also built on the coasts of a region called "Terre de Feu", as well as on the mouths of the Black River and Chubut River. Since the settlements were located in extreme environments, they were not self-sufficient and had to be constantly supplied by boats from Bonaire or by trade with local tribes. The mortality rate among the fishermen was extremely high, which also required a constant human turnover.

Because of the geographical remoteness, the solitude and the harshness of the living conditions, many fishermen were depressed, and they warded off their fate by taking local Amerindian women with whom they got married. This is how a true mestizo society began to emerge on the borders of the Southern Cone... Patagonia and the Malouines Islands were integrated into a new administrative division of Antarctic France: the "Southern Territories", from Cape Magellan to the Black River. The fish caught off Patagonia or the Malouines Islands were sent to Europe : in addition to cod, other fish such as trout also appeared on the European markets and caused a craze, France had finally succeeded in competing with the British in this field...
 
Last edited:
Brazil is too big, it hinders the hegemony of Antarctic France. Antarctic France will help the separatists at the beginning of the 19th century.

Such Brazilian Separatists would have to be bunkers to start shenanigans with a huge, opportunistically hostile nation across the border. Just like how Canadians came together out of fear for the US, Brazilians will similarly fear and adopt a 'stand together or hang separately' mentality vis-a-vis Antarctic France, esp. when said nation has already taken bites out of them.

Supporting a favored faction as the US has done in Mexico make far more sense.
 
Last edited:
Such Brazilian Separatists would have to be bunkers to start shenanigans with a huge, opportunistically hostile nation across the border. Just like how Canadians came together out of fear for the US, Brazilians will similarly fear and adopt a 'stand together or hang separately' mentality vis-a-vis Antarctic France, esp. when said nation has already taken bites out of them.

Supporting a favored faction as the US has done in Mexico make far more sense.
I think the Brazilian separatists will become more prevalent after Antarctic France becomes industrialised sufficiently, which would come at the late 19th to 20th century since Brazil becomes progressively less powerful as agriculture becomes less prevalent.

Btw, what allies would Antarctic France have? I'd think England would be a great ally to the Antarctique as they would be a great counterweight to France. The US after both colonies are independent would also be great allies to each other as they are literally on opposite ends of the continent so they would interfere with each other rarely unless one polity got overzealous, while they have similar permanent interests (keep Europeans out of the Americas so they can interfere) and have similar histories. France would also be a great ally long term as they would share a language and some culture. I'd see them cooperating in the middle East for example.

On the topic of the future, when does the Antarctique rebel against the French? I'd guess restricting protestentism/increasing taxes would be an excellent reason to rebel.

Ps: how much control does France have in their colonies?
 
Last edited:
I think the Brazilian separatists will become more prevalent after Antarctic France becomes industrialised sufficiently, which would come at the late 19th to 20th century since Brazil becomes progressively less powerful as agriculture becomes less prevalent.
There are far more fault lines within Antarctic France than there are in Brazil. You have catholic-Huguenot, Huguenot-Metropolis, French-Hispanic, Settlers-Natives and eventually Slavery-Antislavery.

Brazil has had most of its coal production area taken, putting them at a disadvantage so it would lag behind in both population and industry, thus economically as well. Meaning Antarctic France, which should realistically be too internally focused for adventurism, would economically dominate Brazil anyway. Not only would Brazilians be extremely wary of their neighbor, said neighbor stand to benefit more with one large opened market than multiple small ones.
 
Just a question, if the ATL Age of Revolutions comes along, would Antarctic France revolt against its Mother Country to become a republic? Yes? No?
 
I think the Brazilian separatists will become more prevalent after Antarctic France becomes industrialised sufficiently, which would come at the late 19th to 20th century since Brazil becomes progressively less powerful as agriculture becomes less prevalent.

Btw, what allies would Antarctic France have? I'd think England would be a great ally to the Antarctique as they would be a great counterweight to France. The US after both colonies are independent would also be great allies to each other as they are literally on opposite ends of the continent so they would interfere with each other rarely unless one polity got overzealous, while they have similar permanent interests (keep Europeans out of the Americas so they can interfere) and have similar histories. France would also be a great ally long term as they would share a language and some culture. I'd see them cooperating in the middle East for example.

On the topic of the future, when does the Antarctique rebel against the French? I'd guess restricting protestentism/increasing taxes would be an excellent reason to rebel.

Ps: how much control does France have in their colonies?
The alliance could be complicated with the United States if both countries adopt a policy of hegemony over the entire Latin American world... The control of the Panama Canal at the end of the 19th century could be the most serious bone of contention.
 
Part XVII: Demographic statistics in the 18th century.

1729 census: 847,000 settlers*, 75,000 slaves*

Colony of Parana: 33,000 settlers, 15,000 slaves
St. Catherine's colony: 88,000 settlers, 38,000 slaves

King Henry's colony: 300,000 settlers, 19,000 slaves
Colony of Philippiane: 37,000 settlers, 3,000 slaves, nearly 150,000 Guarani

Colony of Transargentine: 164,000 settlers
Colony of Bonaire: 182,000 settlers
Andean Territories: 43,000 settlers

1764 census: 2,424,000 settlers, 200,000 slaves


Colony of Parana: 138,000 settlers, 63,000 slaves

St. Catherine's colony: 196,000 settlers, 86,000 slaves

King Henry's colony: 739,000 settlers, 39,000 slaves
Colony of Philippiane: 100,000 settlers, 12,000 slaves, nearly 200,000 Guarani

Colony of Transargentine: 416,000 settlers
Colony of Bonaire: 460,000 settlers
Andean Territories: 105,000 settlers
Chilean Administration: 270,000 settlers, nearly 200,000 Mapuche

1784 census: 4,055,000 settlers, 315,000 slaves


Colony of Parana: 257,000 settlers, 113,000 slaves
St. Catherine's colony: 311,000 settlers, 133,000 slaves

King Henry's colony: 1,226,000 settlers, 48,000 slaves
Colony of Philippiane: 169,000 settlers, 21,000 slaves, nearly 200,000 Guarani

Colony of Transargentine: 699,000 settlers
Colony of Bonaire: 774,000 settlers
Andean Territories: 173,000 settlers
Chilean Administration: 445,000 settlers, nearly 250,000 Mapuche
Southern Territories: 1,400 settlers

*White, Hispanic and mixed race, *Black and Native American
 
Last edited:
There are far more fault lines within Antarctic France than there are in Brazil. You have catholic-Huguenot, Huguenot-Metropolis, French-Hispanic, Settlers-Natives and eventually Slavery-Antislavery.

Brazil has had most of its coal production area taken, putting them at a disadvantage so it would lag behind in both population and industry, thus economically as well. Meaning Antarctic France, which should realistically be too internally focused for adventurism, would economically dominate Brazil anyway. Not only would Brazilians be extremely wary of their neighbor, said neighbor stand to benefit more with one large opened market than multiple small ones.
You have to remember though that the Huguenots mostly dominate the French Antarctique by then which would let them interfere in Latin America. Also why would there be a Huguenot and slavery divide? I do believe a lot of Huguenots would live in the cities and I don't think most of the land the colony has is conducive to slavery.
 
You have to remember though that the Huguenots mostly dominate the French Antarctique by then which would let them interfere in Latin America. Also why would there be a Huguenot and slavery divide? I do believe a lot of Huguenots would live in the cities and I don't think most of the land the colony has is conducive to slavery.
The Huguenots master the slave plantations. And the entire Rio de la Plata basin seems to be well suited to cash crop and slave plantations, since it has a humid subtropical climate like in the southern United States.
 
Top