How Can France Do Better Post Napoleon?- Especially in terms of demographics

[Van555]

This question has been asked before but i'm bad with search function.

my guess is the real thing that matters is preventing German unification but also

- preventing nappy 3- the incompetent

- Industrializing earlier somehow?

- be a less sucky colonial power

thoughts? specific?

(btw it's my first thread, so yeah...)

 

[Yorel]

preventing nappy 3- the incompetent

Napoleon III was not incompetent. He was a decent ruler. However, he was terrible in foreign policies. That's what made him fall.
If you look closely at the Second Empire, the Regime could have lasted had it not been for the Franco-Prussian War.
Besides, most of the Industrail development of France happened during the Second Empire : the Third Republic only ended what the Second Empire had started.

So, butterflying Nappy III is not really the sole option. Having him being better at Foreign policies would do the trick.

be a less sucky colonial power

Not sure this would be a good thing. Britain had the largest Empire on Earth and was the strongest industrail power post-Napoleon before the rise of Germany. And even then, Britain remained in the strongest industrial nations.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Possible PODs

1. I've wondered whether French Algeria was, all things considered, a good idea. It was rather draining and a long war resulted against Abd-el Kadir, and did it gain France anything in the intermediate term ? Would France not have been better off giving overt support to Mehmed Ali's Egypt, up to and including brinksmanship on the point of war? France's decline in power seems to relate to the Egyptian collapse when faced with the other European powers.

2. If Ferdinand had not died, then the 1848 upheavals would probably have seen Louis Philippe abdicate for his son, and a new and popular Orleanist regime.

3. Napoleon III was a good domestic ruler, but as said above his foreign policy was not a success. If Maximilian decides its not a good idea to go with the Mexico plan, then Napoleon III doesn't have a viable foreign noble and if it goes ahead it may well be with Iturbide. But it would be more likely he would stick with the Maritime Powers original plan and not engage in conquest.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Van555]

Hmm perhaps as was too harsh on Nappy the 3

so it seems that less foreign adventures and a respect of limits would make them more successful

great thoughts!

 

[Grey Wolf]

Hmm perhaps as was too harsh on Nappy the 3

so it seems that less foreign adventures and a respect of limits would make them more successful

great thoughts!

I guess we define successful? For prestige reasons France needs to play the great power game, but it could be a question of making a stand in the right places, and not in the wrong ones.

France in China and the Far East was generally a success - whether in concert with Britain in the invasion of China in the 1860s, or on their own in subduing Indo-China in stages. That built up a pretty good power base, but a lot of the harder work was done under the Third Republic and could be said to have had dubious value. For example, the taking of Saigon and Cochin China was a valuable strategic move and not too expensive, and the subjugation of the Vietnamese emperor to French oversight similar. But when it was decided to basically move towards a conquest of the country it was horrendously expensive in lives (the reports to parliament mostly omitted this part) and what quite did it gain France?

As I say, backing Egypt in 1840s would have given it a strong position in the East. Napoleon III tried to redress the lost influence by involvement in the Crimean War, but he was too much the dreamer internationally, beguiled by what his uncle had done, and his strategic view was too full of resurrecting Poland or unifying Italy to concentrate on what the Franco-British alliance could achieve in 1856

Italy is a good point to look at where a French policy was seemingly more about a glorious past than a pragmatic future. What did it help France for there to be an independent united Italy?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Possible PODs

1. I've wondered whether French Algeria was, all things considered, a good idea. It was rather draining and a long war resulted against Abd-el Kadir, and did it gain France anything in the intermediate term ? Would France not have been better off giving overt support to Mehmed Ali's Egypt, up to and including brinksmanship on the point of war? France's decline in power seems to relate to the Egyptian collapse when faced with the other European powers.

I agree that Algeria was a mistake - in fact a catastrophic one. But I don't see how Egypt had anything to do with France's decline. In fact, Britain's occupation gave France a weapon with which to blackmail Britain, giving France a much freer hand to chip away at British interests all over the world except the Nile Valley, while retaining a large role in Egyptian economic affairs.

I believe France's decline in power was pretty much centrally related to the Franco-Prussian War and the establishment of the German Empire, don't you agree?

If you're referring to 1840, Egypt was so badly overextended and in such trouble in Syria I don't see how France could have gained in this situation. As it was, she gained preeminence in Egypt anyway, and an Egypt on more realistic and sustainable foundations.

 

[Monty Burns]

Considering the demographic factor, there'S clearly a disadvantage of France. Whereas France had probably the highest population outside Russia, it was later surpassed by Germany. I think a major reason for the loss in demographics could be that French citizens were rather well of in comparison to other European countries. So, in effect, the French pretook the later experience that higher per-capita BIP and general well-being of the population decreases the number of children.

 

[pompejus]

If France could get Belgium, or even only Wallonia that would help a lot with French industrialisation. Maybe France keeps it after the Napolenic wars or gains it during the Belgian revolt (with Flanders going to the Netherlands, as Britain does not want the Flemish ports falling into French hands).

 

[Monty Burns]

If France could get Belgium, or even only Wallonia that would help a lot with French industrialisation. Maybe France keeps it after the Napolenic wars or gains it during the Belgian revolt (with Flanders going to the Netherlands, as Britain does not want the Flemish ports falling into French hands).

True. Belgium was the first industrializing country on the continent and had a fairly large BIP. Furthermore, it holds significant coal reserves. All of that is concentrated in Wallonia.

Nevertheless, I think this is rather a trick-solution. After all, Germany would be more powerful as well if you add in Wallonia or comparable regions. To go to the extreme: without German unification or the Franco-Prussian war going differently, Luxemburg, Alsace-Lorraine, Palatinate and the Sarre region might be French as well...

 

[Mikestone8]

I guess we define successful? For prestige reasons France needs to play the great power game, but it could be a question of making a stand in the right places, and not in the wrong ones.

How many "stands" did Louis Philippe make? Certainly fewer than Napoleon III. Yet the July Monarchy lasted about as long as the Second Empire.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

True. Belgium was the first industrializing country on the continent and had a fairly large BIP.

BIP? ??? Industrial? Production?/Product?/????

 

[Susano]

BIP? ??? Industrial? Production?/Product?/????

Bruttoinlandsprodukt
I think its GNP in English...

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

I guess we define successful? For prestige reasons France needs to play the great power game, but it could be a question of making a stand in the right places, and not in the wrong ones.

France in China and the Far East was generally a success - whether in concert with Britain in the invasion of China in the 1860s, or on their own in subduing Indo-China in stages. That built up a pretty good power base, but a lot of the harder work was done under the Third Republic and could be said to have had dubious value. For example, the taking of Saigon and Cochin China was a valuable strategic move and not too expensive, and the subjugation of the Vietnamese emperor to French oversight similar. But when it was decided to basically move towards a conquest of the country it was horrendously expensive in lives (the reports to parliament mostly omitted this part) and what quite did it gain France?

As I say, backing Egypt in 1840s would have given it a strong position in the East. Napoleon III tried to redress the lost influence by involvement in the Crimean War, but he was too much the dreamer internationally, beguiled by what his uncle had done, and his strategic view was too full of resurrecting Poland or unifying Italy to concentrate on what the Franco-British alliance could achieve in 1856

Italy is a good point to look at where a French policy was seemingly more about a glorious past than a pragmatic future. What did it help France for there to be an independent united Italy?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Things is that backing Egypt to the hilt and turning it into a vassal would bring the French into conflict with the British, who wanted control of the Suez Canal which was built with mostly French finance.

 

[tayboitd]

- be a less sucky colonial power

France got whatever it could due to wars, agreements, and a lot of (bad) luck. Madagascar was out of an agreement with UK in exchange for East Africa. Senegal and another strip of West Africa that I can't recall the name of go way back to the age of colonization in the Americas! Basically France's old (pre-1871) colonial idea was largely realistic and pragmatic. They made the right choice of keeping the $ugar islands over New Fran¢e, which was big money sinkhole even with the fur trade. Grabbing anything more is less attention at home. Louisiana was unlikely to be worth the effort - it was difficult to hold onto and in a position where everyone, Spain, Britain, or the USA wanted it.

If you can somehow avoid the Franco-Prussian War, or have a different treaty (like Algeria instead of Alsace-Lorraine), then France is in a much better position - significantly less anger towards the Germans, who will have much harder standing against Britain and colonies to defend.

I guess we define successful? For prestige reasons France needs to play the great power game, but it could be a question of making a stand in the right places, and not in the wrong ones.

France in China and the Far East was generally a success - whether in concert with Britain in the invasion of China in the 1860s, or on their own in subduing Indo-China in stages. That built up a pretty good power base, but a lot of the harder work was done under the Third Republic and could be said to have had dubious value. For example, the taking of Saigon and Cochin China was a valuable strategic move and not too expensive, and the subjugation of the Vietnamese emperor to French oversight similar. But when it was decided to basically move towards a conquest of the country it was horrendously expensive in lives (the reports to parliament mostly omitted this part) and what quite did it gain France?

Grey Wolf

In terms of money and raw resources, I think Indochina overall broke roughly even - the prestige issue was pretty big to protect Catholic missionaries. The problem was that the most rebellious areas (in Vietnam) were the most rebellious but also the most profitable - opposite Laos and Cambodia. But if anything the many foreign policy blunders were in Africa. Algeria, as noted, was a horrible mistake. Tunisia drove Italy (temporarily) to Germany. I can't imagine the cost of trying to link Senegal with Algeria through the Sahara. Save possibly cocoa, cotton and sand, most agricultural resources obtained OTL from sub-Sahara Africa can obtained in Indochina or whatever was left of French America. Better to let Italy and Germany have bigger shares to sink money into. France's largely worthless African empire was built out of an inferiority complex to Britains' and insecurity to the Germans.

 

[Van555]

Interesting

 

[The Wandering Poet]

So Napoleon III was the opposit of Bismarck and his realpolitik?

 

[Riain]

Wasn't France short on coal and iron? If so industrialisation will always be a challenge.

 

[stevep]

Guys

Something I read once suggested that the Code Napoleon was part of the problem. Because it ensured that land would be divided between the sons rather than go to the eldest. Hence, instead of younger sons having to find different careers, including possibly in trade and industry, peasant plots became steadily smaller. Which then encouraged birth control as they were getting too small for the families to split further.

Not sure if this is accurate but does seem a valid idea. Also it would explain the basic fact that France, the most populous nation west of Russia, without involvement in a crushing defeat - before 1870 - or major immigration to colonies that I'm aware of, dropped behind its neighbours in terms of population. By 1900 I think Britain had pretty much the same population as France, despite being outnumbered about 5:2 in ~1800 and sending millions of emigrants to the colonies and US. Similarly Germany, which also saw many leave the country grew far more rapidly than France.

Steve

 

[papermario]

I've read that France and Spain were more laissez-faire with their colonies than Britain was. If you look at North America, Quebec and Mexico were lightly populated compared to the Thirteen Colonies. France and Spain used the areas for trade, rather than annexation. Britain had its xenophobic colonists wipe out Native Americans to expand its empire and get a more "favorable" system of trading. This is somewhat removed from Napoleon, but if you guys think that it's still applicable then there's a start.

Napoleon III wasn't awful, but his dislike of Austria prevented him from allying with them to stop Prussia's rise. If Austria and France can keep Prussia down, you have no or a very different Germany. France and Austria maintain their respective spheres of influence, and you have France keep its power as the dominant country in (West) Europe, rather than losing out to Germany. Many people have posted that the Franco-Prussian War was decisive, but I also think the Austro-Prussian War was crucial: Prussia beat one and then the other, if the two had been together Prussia could have been stopped.

 

[Susano]

Napoleon III wasn't awful, but his dislike of Austria prevented him from allying with them to stop Prussia's rise. If Austria and France can keep Prussia down, you have no or a very different Germany. France and Austria maintain their respective spheres of influence, and you have France keep its power as the dominant country in (West) Europe, rather than losing out to Germany. Many people have posted that the Franco-Prussian War was decisive, but I also think the Austro-Prussian War was crucial: Prussia beat one and then the other, if the two had been together Prussia could have been stopped.

Well, I can see a tacit understanding betwene the two Empires, but what interest does either side have in an alliance? After all, Prussia wasnt really seen as threat by anybody. It clearly was a rival for Austria, yes, but it was seen by everybody as the junior great power in the German Confederation, behind Austria. The 1866 war and its result was basically a huge surprise for everybody. Thus, its easy for Napoleon to rationalise that any prestige gains of him will be at the cost of Austria, since they will likely have to happen in Italy and Germany, and OTOH Napoleon simply doesnt have anything to offer to Austria.