France discover america

What if france discover america instead of spain?
The knowledge would still arrive to the other European powers within a decade or two, France would have a headstart so they could have better chances with early colonisation if they realise its value and send more expeditions.

Also when did they discover it, and where did they land, thats important.
 
Last edited:
Im not an expert on early colonisation, but i doubt it will change much if anything, hell i don't think France would accept Columbus if Spain didn't.
Like i said before France could get an advantage if they send expeditions early on.

Does he still land in the Carribean?
 
Im not an expert on early colonisation, but i doubt it will change much if anything, hell i don't think France would accept Columbus if Spain didn't.
Like i said before France could get an advantage if they send expeditions early on.

Does he still land in the Carribean?
land near long island
 
land near long island
Oh, then he'll come back and report the land to the french crown(remember he believed he landed in India OTL) and they send some ships over to check about until they realise that, infact, it is not India, what they do after is debatable but if they find anything of use they could set up settlements on the coasts.
 
I picture not much being different, given France's North American colonial efforts seem pretty desultory. I'd expect the Brits to take it over in time, & end up with an ARW.

With French colonizing farther south, & sooner, it might mean no French Quebec... That could lead to more colonies rebelling.

No (ex-) French Quebec can only be good for Canadian unity.

Yes, I'm minimizing the butterflies between 1492 & 1776; IMO, history doesn't just take sharp turns. If French access to New York has a bigger influence than I think, I'm prepared to revise my view.:)
 
This TL could go in all sorts of directions. If the objective is to find a pathway to Asia, the explorer will map a lot of the coast (because he is trying to find the sea passage) so the first settlement could be anywhere on the continent, and not necessarily where he first lands.
 

Bit of a necro, phx, and responding to a conversation between two banned people, no less? Bold move, youngling.

I'll throw my hat in the ring, though; the main reason that French colonization was "desultory" was because they favored trading colonialism over settler colonialism. If France discovers the Americas and somewhat convergently adopts their OTL passive, trade-focused approach, we could see potentially stronger native states, especially if France cares enough to preserve their monopoly over American trade through war (thus accidentally protecting their new partners).
 
Bit of a necro, phx, and responding to a conversation between two banned people, no less? Bold move, youngling.
:eek: Certainly not meant to be. I've been seeing the "overage thread" warning, & avoiding comment when it comes up. This had none, so it seemed fresh enough. As for banned... I've noticed the "barred" usernames still being (apparently) active, & I was (am!) unaware of any certain way to know who is, or isn't, prohibited, except for them simply not turning up in comments. So...
If France discovers the Americas and somewhat convergently adopts their OTL passive, trade-focused approach, we could see potentially stronger native states, especially if France cares enough to preserve their monopoly over American trade through war (thus accidentally protecting their new partners).
That would be a really distinctly different outcome, indeed. One, IMO, good for the Natives of North America in general. Likely? Well...I'd say moreso than others might.:)
 
There's a bar underneath each banned person's name that says "Banned"...but I wasn't really criticizing, just joshin' ya.

Another thought: this could eventually lead to the development of a French navy that's actually a serious contender rather than--quite frankly--an afterthought. Which correspondingly might mean a weaker army. I would say if the trade with the Americas becomes even half as vital to France as OTL Spanish colonies were to Spain, we likely either see a drastically more militaristic France or one with glaring weaknesses in its economic and political structure (much like late colonial Spain, to be honest).
 
There's a bar underneath each banned person's name that says "Banned"...
I've seen that, too, but it doesn't seem to apply every time.:confounded: Which left me thinking at least some are just saying it of themselves... (Is that odd? Yes. It fit the facts.)
but I wasn't really criticizing, just joshin' ya.
I did get that sense...but text doesn't allow the nuance.;)
Another thought: this could eventually lead to the development of a French navy that's actually a serious contender rather than--quite frankly--an afterthought. Which correspondingly might mean a weaker army. I would say if the trade with the Americas becomes even half as vital to France as OTL Spanish colonies were to Spain, we likely either see a drastically more militaristic France or one with glaring weaknesses in its economic and political structure (much like late colonial Spain, to be honest).
I've raised that issue in another thread, based on potential French control of sugar in Caribbean islands. It could make France much richer, & so much more inclined to meddle.

I absolutely agree, it could improve the French Navy--shipbuilding in general, because you can bet the Brits will respond. Would it lead to a pre-WW1-style arms race? Maybe. Even provoke a war? Possible.

The increased aggressiveness this might allow could be a very big deal.:eek:

My feeling is, the wealth doesn't force a structural change. (One might arise, but it isn't forced as a product.) It might end up leading to, frex, the Revolution happening sooner, because France spends herself into a crisis, after getting used to having more means. Or getting tangled in a war that gets bigger than expected.:eek:
 
That's true, if French monarchs are as bad at managing their wealth as IOTL, there could certainly be an earlier revolution, especially if more wealth to the crown means an earlier absolutism.

I disagree on the social structure point though: American colonies catapulted Spain into a position of huge wealth and quite immense power for a time. The dependency on New World wealth shaped Spanish society and economics for a long time. I'd argue that even trade (though not as profitable in the short term as brutal exploitation) might lead to similar changes and certainly a different France. Militarization and aggression, as you say, is probably inevitable as a side effect of this.
 
That's true, if French monarchs are as bad at managing their wealth as IOTL, there could certainly be an earlier revolution, especially if more wealth to the crown means an earlier absolutism.
Agreed. And, to be clear, it was that (ruling) class I had in mind when I suggested small/no change. Being enormously richer than OTL would not encourage them to change their ways, nor (with even more money) would they see a need to--up to the point the sword's at their throat.

Would the broader society change? Inevitably, I agree, & for the better in the main. Post-Revolution France, IMO, would be a much better-off place than OTL, in this scenario--providing it hadn't been preceded by really stupid, devastating war(s), which I can't rule out.

If I seem reluctant to take a position, you're right.;) IDK near enough about the state of play in France to know even where the boundaries of the field are (so to speak). Certainly not back as far as 1492.:eek:

About all I'd say with confidence is, France will control the (OTL) Netherlands & Belgium, probably a sizable slice of Italy (Piedmont alone?), & maybe much (all?) of (OTL) Switzerland. It's also likely French intervention destroyed the HRE. Other than that, I won't even guess. (Offer options, I'll happily thumbs up or down--& get it as wrong as everybody else does, these days, since in the Colosseum, the thumbs down was the life-saver, contrary to popular belief today.:eek:)
 

Alright then, I'll give it a go. This is going to be a long, rambling ride through my thoughts, so be prepared.

France in the late 1400s is in many ways unique in Europe. It is at the time one of the most populated areas in Europe--13 million in 1483 according to Wikipedia--and has just come off of the war that arguably created French national identity (the Hundred Years' War, if you're not familiar). On the face of it, 1400s France is a very successful state, with a well-developed military culture, a strong economy, and a powerful demographic weight. However, this belies the far more complex truth of the matter.

Historically, France has been one of the least centralized states in Europe--not something we often associate with France given the Ancien Régime, but it must be understood that said system emerged directly as a result of its medieval history. During the Norman Conquest, for instance, the crown was so weak that the great princes who controlled the various duchies often treated with foreign powers on their own and more or less ignored the Capets. While this had changed somewhat by the late 1400s, due to the centralization necessary for the Hundred Years' War, the nobility was still very strong and very influential. To compound this, the church controlled some 40% of French property (seriously) and often collaborated with the nobility against royal policies in order to preserve its traditional power.

At the same time, you have a peasantry that is greatly different from the idea of the feudal serf. While serfdom did exist at the time, it was far less strict than in other areas, meaning that peasants were not as tied to the land; indeed, social mobility often depended on geographic mobility, and many peasants rose to become the influential guildmasters and merchants that formed France's economic core precisely through moving and trading.

In a sense, you have two economic and social worlds existing in unspoken tension; the traditional, feudal, authoritarian world of the nobility and the church, and the burgeoning proto-capitalism of the townships, which often ruled themselves. Sitting atop both of these is a crown that, while more powerful than it has been in previous centuries, is still reliant heavily reliant on the nobility and the church to get anything done.

So. Let us then say that someone in French employ--perhaps even Columbus himself, if foisted off by the Spaniards--discovers the Americas in the 1490s (let's say 1495 to take into account delays due to the Spanish rejection). While it's possible that this explorer ends up in the same place as Columbus did IOTL, I find the odds to be vanishingly small and boringly convergent. So let us say instead that alt-Columbus lands on the northern part of the OTL Eastern Seaboard, somewhere a bit north of Manhattan in OTL Connecticut on the Long Island Sound. What, then, are the values of this new land to the French? No sugar, no spice, not all that much nice. Not a whole lot of gold to be sure.

But the-land-that-would-never-be-Connecticut holds great value in reality, due of course to fur. Fur was ridiculously plentiful in the early days of colonialism, and the Long Island Sound is a perfect place to profit off of it. Moreover, the timber found there is of great strategic value to a future French navy, and of course it is decent, though not great, land for tobacco cultivation when that is discovered.

I figure that most likely, the Crown uses this as an opportunity to gain advantage over its subjects and thus establish an alt-Ancien Régime about a hundred years ahead of schedule. Most likely a form of colonial company similar to OTL is formed, with hunters and trappers in service to the crown travelling to the New World (not sure on what it'd be called by Europeans in this ATL, perhaps Colombie or something similar) and bringing back furs. Over time, it's likely that these fellows would make contact with native groups and tap into the continental trade networks (which likely collapse and then quickly reform as per OTL due to plague), gaining access to gold and tobacco from the south, and even possibly maple sugar/syrup from the north. It's likely that there are some settlements made here and there, but these I expect would develop largely as trade hubs rather than areas of heavy settlement and control. There's likely to be a military presence, but I would expect the French to be a LOT less heavy-handed than the Spanish. No conquistadors here most likely.

Let's assume, then, that France more or less has the Americas to itself for the first, oh, five decades or so, with other powers tentatively exploring and making contact (likely the British are among the first). The monarchy thus gains an economic and thus a military and political advantage over its enemies, and is most likely heavily invested in using this. What does the crown do with its new wealth? Well, first of all, the "beautiful 16th century" (in reality 1475 to 1630) is probably magnified even further. Wealth from the New World will inevitably trickle into the townships, likely granting them even more power early on, and an increased reliance on merchants and traders for the stability of the French state. The nobility likely weakens as a result; we may see widespread discontent in the form of civil war, which the nobility probably loses given new wealth. With the rise of townships in wealth, there is probably a corresponding rise in urban population, further weakening both the church and the nobility.

Ah, but it's foreign relations that everyone is interested in, no? In this arena, I figure a more successful Italian Wars on the part of the French, given, again, the influx of wealth. A French Milan is certainly possible, and perhaps even further (French Sicily, anyone?). Brittany is almost certainly incorporated earlier, given Nantes' immense value as a westward port. If indeed there is a Reformation, which there is likely to be given the longstanding institutional corruption in the Catholic Church, it likely goes worse for the Protestants, given that ITTL, France has no reason to side with them (by which I mean side with the German Protestants, certainly not the Huguenots) given its strengthened position, and may in fact be on the opposing side, which would mean French gains in the HRE. We may even see a reversal of the French + Protestant states vs. Catholic League dichotomy that emerged at certain points, with Spain using the Reformation as an opportunity to weaken France. Protestant on Catholic civil strife may occur as per IOTL, but I figure the Catholics win even harder than OTL as long as the Protestants don't actually convert the monarchy (which is more possible than you might think).

With that being said, none of this actually talks about the Americas, SO most likely in the mid-1500s, other powers begin to establish claims in Columbie, likely Britain and Spain first. Are there bush fights over this, as per IOTL between the French and Britain? Oh yeah. I can see burning trading posts, short and bitter wars which threaten to become larger conflicts, the usual. However, with the 'model' of colonialism being trade-based, I doubt we see many settler colonies. Even Spain, most likely, does not conquer the Aztecs or Tawantinsuyu, given that as far as they know, that's unfeasible without the model of Cortez. Keep in mind that conquistador colonialism evolved purely from the luck of Cortez. There are certainly settlements and communities in the New World; likely the Caribbean as per OTL becomes heavily populated by European settlements, given the low population of natives and the effects of plague, which will unfortunately probably wipe out Caribbean groups almost entirely, against as per OTL. But on the mainland? Most likely trade hubs and allied native nations, which is the more interesting point here.

With conflict emerging over trade, we (first of all) will see the development of a French navy, probably using NAmerican timber. We will also almost certainly see a patronage-based relationship with native nations, as various powers ally themselves with the Mohawk or what have you in order to use them essentially as auxiliaries against their enemies; in exchange for the normal trade goods, and of course, weapons. I figure European technology filters in slowly through these avenues, and we see native nations far away from the Europeans (and thus far away from the likely constant low-level conflict over trade) developing and consolidating against more technologically primitive and thus unlucky groups. I wouldn't be surprised if we see the emergence of a strong power in Mexico and among the Cherokee and similar groups in the southern *United States. Over time, it's likely that these powers will demand a more equitable relationship, which may in and of itself lead to war.

What would the future look like after this? I'm not sure. But these are my disconnected, rambling thoughts on the matter. Pass down your judgment with mercy, O Great Caesar. :p
 
That's true, if French monarchs are as bad at managing their wealth as IOTL, there could certainly be an earlier revolution, especially if more wealth to the crown means an earlier absolutism.

Monarchs went broke all the time back then. The fiscal crisis in 1789 only partially explains the Revolution. The general rise of Enlightened ideas was very important, not to mention the indecisive personality of Louis XVI...
 
Top