France Wank!!!!!!!

or even the 'torpedo ram'...
... but who could forget HMS Thunder Child? ;)

One of the finest ships in the navy.

Phx1138: I'd think almost certainly to the first half, but not as sure on the second.

But a France building more of a navy is a France almost certainly more friendly to its maritime sector, so that goes places.
 
Elfwine said:
France building more of a navy is a France almost certainly more friendly to its maritime sector, so that goes places.
It does. I had in mind both better shipbuilding generally (more skilled men, better overall skill levels), plus what amounts to subsidized searches for fish & such.

Another factor: does this offer opportunities for Basque sailors in French service?
 
Last edited:
Myself, I would go for an earlier POD : making Louis Xth (Louis le Hutin) sterile would allow to remove the Salic Law (which was brought up so Philip V, his brother, would follow on the throne of France instead of his daughter).
France would also keep Navarre, and the reason for the Hundred Years' War would be removed. (Edward III of England claiming the French Throne for himself as a grandson of Philip IV, instead of turning to the Valois)
Therefore it could have changed largely the history's course as France would've had a queen (as no Salic Law, and no strong claiming-king to ask for it) and the Hundred Years' War, which had struck France at the top of its riches.
An even larger wank could be reached by killing all Philip IV's descent except Philip V and Edward III - so France and Britain would end up united as one kingdom.
 
IT LIVES!!!!!!!!! Winning the Napoleonic Wars and holding on to its gains would probably help. Managing to beat Russia soundly during the Wars would probably establish it into clear wank territory. A French empire than stretches from the Atlas to the Urals.
 
You can argue that Spain is the biggest colonial 'loser' in that most of its colonies have been lame duck states that only prospered in recent times, and during the times they had them, failed to extract wealth efficiently or effectively while other states made mints out of a few Caribbean islands alone. But they did leave behind a legacy of over 400 million native speakers of their language that have strong cultural ties to Spain; as these states become more prosperous in the future, Spain's legacy will be felt far stronger. Empires come and go, but the impact of their actions is felt forever; which is why ensuring French success in colonization is IMO a cornerstone of a true wank, even if decentralization of the empire by rebellion or dominion is likely inevitable.

As outlined above, there's a window for Columbus to sail under the French flag and what will absolutely determine the nature of French colonization is discovering gold. To hell with OTL, gold is gold and you can be sure to draw settlers like mad if you can use it as bait. Potosi had 30,000 Europeans relatively shortly after conquest due to striking gold. California's population boom can be attributed entirely to the gold rush, which laid a foundation for American presence on the west coast far faster than it would have been otherwise. So what matters most here is likely the discovery of gold by the French, before its competitors. IIRC, the nearest source of gold is probably in the Hispaniola although its sources quickly drained dry. That being the reason conquistadors became a thing, moar gold.

Columbus is unlikely to strike gold or be anywhere near Hispaniola on his first voyage, and more likely to end up in the American South. Which means that you're likely to need a return voyage after a not-so-successful one for Columbus to discover the more prosperous brand of native found in the Caribbean and Mesoamerica that possess gold.
 
As outlined above, there's a window for Columbus to sail under the French flag and what will absolutely determine the nature of French colonization is discovering gold. To hell with OTL, gold is gold and you can be sure to draw settlers like mad if you can use it as bait. Potosi had 30,000 Europeans relatively shortly after conquest due to striking gold. California's population boom can be attributed entirely to the gold rush, which laid a foundation for American presence on the west coast far faster than it would have been otherwise. So what matters most here is likely the discovery of gold by the French, before its competitors. IIRC, the nearest source of gold is probably in the Hispaniola although its sources quickly drained dry. That being the reason conquistadors became a thing, moar gold.

Agreed. We can't assume that a OTL Canada is a predictor of how a tropical French colonial empire would look. Canada didn't offer many incentives to settlers: it had no precious metals (as far as anyone knew), didn't produce cash crops and had a climate far harsher than that of France itself. Furs were its only valuable export and they were actually a disincentive for large-scale settlement, since only a small number of trappers were needed to harvest them.

If France controls South America and finds gold and silver, there will be a lot of Frenchmen there in short order. Additional sugar colonies would likely draw a lot of settlers too. My understanding is that France did not have much trouble finding settlers for Guadeloupe, Martinique and Saint-Domingue, although there was only so much available land to settle.
 
Agreed. We can't assume that a OTL Canada is a predictor of how a tropical French colonial empire would look. Canada didn't offer many incentives to settlers: it had no precious metals (as far as anyone knew), didn't produce cash crops and had a climate far harsher than that of France itself. Furs were its only valuable export and they were actually a disincentive for large-scale settlement, since only a small number of trappers were needed to harvest them.

If France controls South America and finds gold and silver, there will be a lot of Frenchmen there in short order. Additional sugar colonies would likely draw a lot of settlers too. My understanding is that France did not have much trouble finding settlers for Guadeloupe, Martinique and Saint-Domingue, although there was only so much available land to settle.

Exactly. France's problem was that their colonial options were a frozen wasteland and a swamp. Combined with France having one of the highest standards of living in Europe, getting settlers becomes an effort that needs to be organized from the top-down by the state, something that historically France had little interest or incentive in doing it. But if you change the available terrain options, then it's likely you'll attract more settlers. Throw in gold and you've got a human horde backed by a state that controls one in three people in continental Europe. A more densely populated Americas is almost assured, especially as this gold will be able to fuel strategic conquests, such as the Netherlands. Which in turn will give France access to banking. GG Europe. Assuming the best case scenario.
 
Given France is building more ships, does this force France to look for more/better forests? Like, frex, Newfoundland?

And does France discover the "lime juice solution" before RN? Or sooner than OTL? (IIRC, this had been known for centuries, then forgotten, then rediscovered.)

These are two areas where France has natural advantages over England for fleet-building. It has more access in its metropolitan territory to timber (although IOTL it did have to import some, it was mainly because of internal issues than because of deforestation as in Spain or Britain), and its southern half is correct citrus-growing climate.
 
The thing is, France wasn't "programmed" to create priests and warriors for conquest like Spain was, after centuries of reconquista they could only produce priests and warriors, so they were able to conquer and convert a MASSIVE population of natives, who later died... but still... that's something France could not have done.

The closest I could see France getting to that would be France doing the Reconquista, perhaps Asturias is a Francian vassal, and the Franks lead the charge against the Moslems.
 
Even if you consider France rushes in and takes over Central America as well as the Carribean (with little opposition), how would the French have acted with the local Inca and Aztec Empires?
According to me, the French would've crushed the Aztecs but the Inca would've been allowed to remain a country, at least until they get killed by the diseases.
 
The thing is, France wasn't "programmed" to create priests and warriors for conquest like Spain was, after centuries of reconquista they could only produce priests and warriors, so they were able to conquer and convert a MASSIVE population of natives, who later died... but still... that's something France could not have done.

The closest I could see France getting to that would be France doing the Reconquista, perhaps Asturias is a Francian vassal, and the Franks lead the charge against the Moslems.

I don't think that's needed, considering that you could argue that the Spanish were almost recklessly aggressive in their efforts to find gold. Their expeditions turned up empty as often as they turned up a civilization to conquer, and the biggest impact of their actions for the natives isn't any conquests they did but the disease they spread, allowing them to conquer later. You just need to look at their expeditions into the Amazon from numerous entry points, their efforts along the Mississippi, and their efforts in Texas. On the other hand, their introduction of European disease to the Inca because of their constant expeditions in the name of wealth resulted in the stars aligning for them to allow such a conquest, all traceable back to the disease they first spread.

A lot of natives are going to die no matter how the French approach colonization, but it will undoubtedly be slower, and who's to say the French NEED conquistadors to overrun the New World? Columbus' actions essentially set the tone for how interaction between Europeans and New World natives would go for centuries, and it's likely that the wealth will draw the kinds of mercenary men needed to go on these military expeditions in the name of god and money, with or without the Spanish. What I view as more likely of an outline is something like this:

  • First Voyage - Columbus lands in the Carolinas, claims it for France, but returns with little wealth. Flip a coin to see if the king is willing to humor another expedition.
  • Second Voyage- Columbus lands in a similar area close to his first landing but having come more prepared, continues to sail southwards. By good fortune, he sails south straight to Cuba instead of hugging the coast of Florida, and interacts with the natives, obtaining some gold trinkets that are enough to convince the king to send more people
  • Third Voyage - A colony of 300 men is established somewhere between Virginia and Georgia, and a second colony of a few hundred in Hispaniola
  • Fourth Voyage - A third colony is set up on Cuba, a small but steady trickle of gold is drawing adventurers from across French crown lands and even Germany and Italy
Even if you consider France rushes in and takes over Central America as well as the Carribean (with little opposition), how would the French have acted with the local Inca and Aztec Empires?
According to me, the French would've crushed the Aztecs but the Inca would've been allowed to remain a country, at least until they get killed by the diseases.

I think the French are capable of destroying the Aztec's power base, but can't say whether they'll conquer Mesoamerica outright. I think a few colonial outposts for trade are more likely until gold fever strikes and there's a few Europeans looking for gold too many in the outposts/the Caribbean.

The French are not conquering the Inca, the best they can hope for is a puppet ruler several hundred years from the discovery of the New World assuming the unlikely scenario where the Inca do not adapt at all. The Inca also aren't going to be utterly decimated by disease. They'll suffer, but survive. Half the reason the Inca were so decimated was because of a simultaneous civil war alongside the spread of disease, not to mention that the oft-cited 90% casualty rate includes whatever atrocities the Spanish committed and is used as a continent-wide figure for the Americas. The Andes also provide a very good barrier to mass disease spread so long as the Inca quickly adopt quarantine practices, or even inoculation should they establish contact with China.
 
About conquering Mesoamerica? Well Yucatan is no situation to oppose them (the Maya Yucatec empire crumbled in 1500 more or less on its own, and the region was less populated than Mexico).
However, names would be changed obviously - Mexico city would maybe stay Tenochtitlan, and the country become Azteca instead.
By the way, here's an interesting fact : Inca "gold" actually was made out of an alloy extracted directly in the Empire, of gold, silver and copper. Through chemical operations (HNO3 for silver, other soft acid for copper like H2SO4) they could keep only gold on the surface, and give it the right shape.
Therefore, the Spanish had ended up with much less gold than expected.
What do you foresee about Canada/Louisiana, and about piracy?
 
Top