French Virginia

The ARW local French fleet superiority was due to a BIG chunk of the French fleet being off the coast of North America facing a small chunk of the RN. No, I don't remember relative %'s or numbers. But even then, the RN tried to maintain a fleet that could take on #2 & #3 together.

Back in the early 1600's, and without a North American empire? Ya, the predominant RN might well be butterflied away.

Oh, in the early 1600s we CAN'T talk about a British superiority on the seas. There was even a certain period when the French and the Dutch were fighting for that domination, leaving Britain in the third place. Britain gets its big break from the 1680s, since the Dutch lose their best admiral and France is forced to invest more in the land forces.
 
Oh, in the early 1600s we CAN'T talk about a British superiority on the seas. There was even a certain period when the French and the Dutch were fighting for that domination, leaving Britain in the third place. Britain gets its big break from the 1680s, since the Dutch lose their best admiral and France is forced to invest more in the land forces.
The British Navy in the early 17th Century was mearly a loose collection of Privateers.
 
The British Navy in the early 17th Century was mearly a loose collection of Privateers.
Actually in the early part they were still pretty competent. As the century progressed they became much worse, mostly due to lack of interest from the various leaders. But Britain did expand their merchant fleets and explored large parts of the world. If they needed to they could have rebuilt rapidly.
 
A French colony in Virginia and the Carolinas, would have been much more advantagious than OTL Quebec. If the French still found New Orleans ITTL, then instead of a large, sparsely populated, disconnected French colonies of OTL, the French North American Empire will be profitable enough (tobacco, rice, indigo, eventually cotton) to be worth populating and defending, and much more compact (making it more easily defensible and easier to govern-I'm assuming Britain settles OTL Quebec). Generally, the French were much more tolerant of Native Americans than the British, so French Virginia might even develop some mixed cultures like the Metis of OTL Manitoba. Also, a profitable economy means much more immigration, which means a much higher population than the OTL French NA colonies. Also, note that French Virginia (or whatever its name is ITTL, maybe Louisiana?) will be in fairly close proximity to the French Caribbean sugar islands, and thus able to materially contribute to their defense. Overall, the French will probably be much more successful in North America than in OTL.

On the downside, Quebec City (the most beautiful city in North America if you ask me) never gets built :(
 
A French colony in Virginia and the Carolinas, would have been much more advantagious than OTL Quebec. If the French still found New Orleans ITTL, then instead of a large, sparsely populated, disconnected French colonies of OTL, the French North American Empire will be profitable enough (tobacco, rice, indigo, eventually cotton) to be worth populating and defending, and much more compact (making it more easily defensible and easier to govern-I'm assuming Britain settles OTL Quebec). Generally, the French were much more tolerant of Native Americans than the British, so French Virginia might even develop some mixed cultures like the Metis of OTL Manitoba. Also, a profitable economy means much more immigration, which means a much higher population than the OTL French NA colonies. Also, note that French Virginia (or whatever its name is ITTL, maybe Louisiana?) will be in fairly close proximity to the French Caribbean sugar islands, and thus able to materially contribute to their defense. Overall, the French will probably be much more successful in North America than in OTL.

On the downside, Quebec City (the most beautiful city in North America if you ask me) never gets built :(

You're putting the cart before the horse there. The French got on well with the Indians because they sparsely settled their colonies that relied on trade with the Indians, a profitably plantation economy will need much denser populations and see the Indians as a nuisance. You can't have it both ways - either you're friendly with the Natives or you have a profitable land-hungry plantation system.

Immigration is uncertain too - swapping the position of the French and British doesn't change the facts that the French had lots of land in France that was unused whilst the British Isles were full up, the British had proportionally more coastal population who could easily move and huge amount of peasant farmers in the Celtic Fringe that they would clear out to improve yields. It also might not change the French attitudes to tax - whilst the British due to politics, the colonies origins as religious settlements and various other factors hardly taxed the colonists at all, the French saw the colonies as profit makers and taxed the same amount as a peasant got in France, removing much incentive to move.

While the French may be more successful, I don't see them being as successful as the British were...
 
You're putting the cart before the horse there. The French got on well with the Indians because they sparsely settled their colonies that relied on trade with the Indians, a profitably plantation economy will need much denser populations and see the Indians as a nuisance. You can't have it both ways - either you're friendly with the Natives or you have a profitable land-hungry plantation system.

You do have a point here-relations in the lowlands of the colony are probably not going to be very good. However, French society never developed an idea of "racial" superiority like Anglophone society did-it was more a sense of cultural superiority. Native Americans would probably have been better off than in British colonies (though that isn't really saying a lot...)
The Appalachain mountains would be interesting-the luxury-obsessed French would probably just use them for fur trading, so French-Indian relations there would be more similar to OTL.

Immigration is uncertain too - swapping the position of the French and British doesn't change the facts that the French had lots of land in France that was unused whilst the British Isles were full up, the British had proportionally more coastal population who could easily move and huge amount of peasant farmers in the Celtic Fringe that they would clear out to improve yields. It also might not change the French attitudes to tax - whilst the British due to politics, the colonies origins as religious settlements and various other factors hardly taxed the colonists at all, the French saw the colonies as profit makers and taxed the same amount as a peasant got in France, removing much incentive to move.

Well, a lot of French did tend to emmigrate to North America-there are a lot of people of French-American ancestry. Quebec recieved a few hundred thousand people, and it was derided as a "few acres of snow". I'm sure a place with a more agreeable climate and with much more prosperity would attract even more people. (Another thing-do you think the colony might see some Irish immigration, to escape from religious persecution?)

Also, the French would most likely import a lot o slaves-even the OTL south, during the final years before the civil war, had more slaves than whites in many places, a phenomenon even more pronounced in Brazil. French America would probably come to look a lot like the latter.

While the French may be more successful, I don't see them being as successful as the British were...

Well, the richest British colonies were in the South, which are French in this TL. Also, note that French America is very close to Haiti and the other French Caribbean islands-enough to serve as a military base and resupply area, and perhaps contribute some troops. This will probably make the French more successful there than in OTL

I didn't say they'd be as successful as the British, just more than OTL-this world's eastern North America will probably have a British New England/Canada, Dutch NY and Pennsylvania (and surrounding areas) and French south, with a stronger French position in the Caribbean.
 
Well, a lot of French did tend to emmigrate to North America-there are a lot of people of French-American ancestry. Quebec recieved a few hundred thousand people, and it was derided as a "few acres of snow". I'm sure a place with a more agreeable climate and with much more prosperity would attract even more people. (Another thing-do you think the colony might see some Irish immigration, to escape from religious persecution?)
Umm.. no, I think you'll find that it was more like 20k. The population was ~60k in 1760, and that was after growing for over 100 years.
 
Umm.. no, I think you'll find that it was more like 20k. The population was ~60k in 1760, and that was after growing for over 100 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect said:
[edit] Founder effects in human populations

Due to various migrations throughout human history, founder effects are somewhat common among humans in different times and places. The effective founder population of Quebec was only 2,600. After twelve to sixteen generations, with an eighty-fold growth but minimal gene dilution from intermarriage, Quebec has what geneticists call optimal linkage disequilibrium (genetic sharing).[13] The result: far fewer genetic variations, including those that have been well studied because they are connected with inheritable diseases.

I know this is an 'effective' population size, but it demonstrates that the original population was even smaller than I remembered. Certainly nothing like the '100s of thousands'
 
I know this is an 'effective' population size, but it demonstrates that the original population was even smaller than I remembered. Certainly nothing like the '100s of thousands'
Didn't realize the original population was so small-I need to read that history of Quebec I have sitting on my bookcase :) I'd heard about the high Catholic birthrate-but 2,000 to several million people today-wow. At any rate, I think that, if France had a colony that (unlike Canada) they felt was actually worth investing in and populating, they could offer tax incentives and other ways to make it higher.

What does everyone here think about my speculation about Irish immigration to ATL French America? I mean, France has a bunch of free, profitable plantation land in a place where nobody will have a problem with them being Catholic-it seems like they could recruit some people to me.

What does everyone think the effects on the British/Dutch/Spanish colonies will be?
 
Population 1800

France: 30 milions

Britain: 10 millions

Population 2005:

China: 1300 millions

USA: 300 millions

China is therefore the most powerful country in the world right now.

Back on topic, it seems to me that there are a couple of interesting consequences that flow from this POD. The first is, obviously, the probable elimination of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The second is the presence of a substantial - probably larger than that of OTL's New France - french-speaking population in the territory of OTL's USA.
 
Didn't realize the original population was so small-I need to read that history of Quebec I have sitting on my bookcase :) I'd heard about the high Catholic birthrate-but 2,000 to several million people today-wow.
Actually, it wasn't just the Roman Catholic birthrate. New England went from ~30k to ~1M by doubling population every 25 years, with very little immigration until after 1830 or so. I don't have the exact numbers handy, but Quebec was not at all exceptional in the time period. What made them stand out was basically that they CONTINUED that birth rate longer than the Anglos around them. We think of the early US as a nation of immigrants, and it really wasn't until after ~1830. Of course, then for the next century or so, it really was, so our perceptions get coloured.
 
Population 2005:

China: 1300 millions

USA: 300 millions

China is therefore the most powerful country in the world right now.

Back on topic, it seems to me that there are a couple of interesting consequences that flow from this POD. The first is, obviously, the probable elimination of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The second is the presence of a substantial - probably larger than that of OTL's New France - french-speaking population in the territory of OTL's USA.
:rolleyes:
A POD in the 1600s and the USA must arise.
Population counts for more when there is no industry or technology to shore up those with smaller populations, like for example in 1600. That means that France can field bigger armies, bigger economy, and so on. Britain will not be able to challenge France in the 1600s. Butterflies may also wipe away the USA, British domination of the seas, and so on.
 
A POD in the 1600s and the USA must arise.
Population counts for more when there is no industry or technology to shore up those with smaller populations, like for example in 1600. That means that France can field bigger armies, bigger economy, and so on. Britain will not be able to challenge France in the 1600s. Butterflies may also wipe away the USA, British domination of the seas, and so on.

Don't know-as I remember it from my AP European history class, France developed its budget problems largely due to the excesses of Louis XIV (Versallies, tons of wars, authoritarian, inefficient government). This POD won't change that-France will still be absolutist, Britain will still be a proto-democratic constitutional monarchy. France will have a better economy ITTL, but better than Britain's? Don't think so.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Population 2005:

China: 1300 millions

USA: 300 millions

China is therefore the most powerful country in the world right now.

Back on topic, it seems to me that there are a couple of interesting consequences that flow from this POD. The first is, obviously, the probable elimination of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. The second is the presence of a substantial - probably larger than that of OTL's New France - french-speaking population in the territory of OTL's USA.

JUst one problem the French was neither poorer or significant technological backward compared to the British. Chinese weakness compared to USA is a result of poorer population, inferior infrastructure and lack in technological know-how. Britain and France was much more comparative in lifestyle and know-how.
 
:rolleyes:
A POD in the 1600s and the USA must arise.

Did you read what I wrote? "OTL's USA". No implication that the USA would exist in the ATL.

JUst one problem the French was neither poorer or significant technological backward compared to the British. Chinese weakness compared to USA is a result of poorer population, inferior infrastructure and lack in technological know-how. Britain and France was much more comparative in lifestyle and know-how.

Britain in the late eighteenth century was noticeably richer than France, with a more efficient tax gathering apparatus, and a far better fiscal track record. More comparative than contemporary America and China? Of course. Completely the same? Of course not.

Also note that Bobbis14's conclusion - that France cannot afford to both compete with Britain at sea and much of the rest of Europe on land - is borne out by the events of OTL. I see no obvious reason why a slightly different colonial setup will have more than a marginal impact on that outcome.
 
Top