How do you make France's Navy better?

Titus_Pullo

Banned
France traditionally expended its resouces on its army having I believe the largest best trained army in Europe from the time of Louis XIV onwards, perhaps even earlier in the 1500s rivalry with the Hapsburgs.
What would have to happen for French kings to pay more serious attention to the French navy atleast with half as much care they took in financing and training its army so that the French navy presents a more formidable threat to the British in the 18th and 19th centuries?
 
France traditionally expended its resouces on its army having I believe the largest best trained army in Europe from the time of Louis XIV onwards, perhaps even earlier in the 1500s rivalry with the Hapsburgs.
What would have to happen for French kings to pay more serious attention to the French navy atleast with half as much care they took in financing and training its army so that the French navy presents a more formidable threat to the British in the 18th and 19th centuries?

France having a reason to.

It, quite frankly, doesn't. Not without pursuing outside Europe options as its primary focus (which would be a significant change).

And even if it does, there are other issues in the way, but you have to have a reason the French kings want a strong, powerful navy when a strong powerful navy is distinctly secondary to France's continental aims, and every penny spent on the navy is a penny the army will lose.
 
The French army was definitly the largest, I found 260 000 men in 1750 opposed to 170 000 Russian (and the cossacks), 110 000 Austrian and 90 000 Prussian soldiers although I don´t guarantee for the numbers. Quality depended on time, branch and regiment. The artillery and some mercenary regiments (Swiss and German) were considered among the best in Europe while the average French infantry regiments were considered as something between garbage, garrison troops and decent but nothing special. Of course I generalize here this is quite a long time.
Now back to the question. At least from Louis XIV onward the French pursued an agressive expansion policy on the European continent which is why they needed this large army in the first place even in peace as they were distrusted and probably disliked by most neighbours. Additionally the court of France was a major net drain. France couldn´t pay with its otl resources for a larger and better fleet additionally. You have either find a way to reduce the army needed (hard) a cheaper alternative to otl french absolutism which still forms a unified state (Prussian model of absolutism with service in the army/navy as a noblemans duty and only limited representation perhaps?) or a large new income for the state which pays for and at the same time relies on a strong navy (India?).
 
I may be wrong, but it always seemed to me that developping a colonial Empire generally helps strenghtening a Navy. There are logical reasons for this: with the commercial routes between the colonies & the motherland, you need both a stronger commercial navy for trade and a stronger war navy to protect trade routes. Sixteenth Century Spain did develop a pretty decent fleet thanks to its American colonies: it was considered the best fleet of its time before it started to decline. Then, there are the Dutch who held a pretty decent fleet at the height of their colonial power: it was even considered the best at one point and this explain why Tsar Peter the Great of Russia visited Dutch Shipyards during his Grand Embassy. And naturally, you have Britain who held the largest colonial Empire of the world for a very long time (and is also an island).

If the French were more interested in keeping New France, it might lead them to develop a stronger navy as a result of a trade increase between France and its North American Colonies. Not sure if this would be enough to creat a French fleet whose strength would rival the Royal Navy, but it could at least make France the 2nd Naval Power...

On a side note, France did have at one point what was considered to be the best fleet of Europe and the World: Louis XIV and his minister Colbert developped a strong navy to rival the Dutch and British fleets. The French Navy effectively held supremacy until the War of the League of Augsburg where it took heavy damages.
 
For a modern navy, it would necessitate an earlier industrialisation in France. Maybe even some annexation in OTL Belgium of Rheinland.

Proably more than an amused interest (at best) from french authorities and academics for steam-powered boats.

And it's always the "i don't make it better, but i force others to do worse" : crush the birth of Germany as a powerful state, or if possible as a state.
 
For a modern navy, it would necessitate an earlier industrialisation in France. Maybe even some annexation in OTL Belgium of Rheinland.

Proably more than an amused interest (at best) from french authorities and academics for steam-powered boats.

And it's always the "i don't make it better, but i force others to do worse" : crush the birth of Germany as a powerful state, or if possible as a state.

That's post-1900 though surely?
 
That's post-1900 though surely?
No, i was thinking about post-1800.

Critically if we want to avoid the return of royalists at the command of the Marine. They replaced more competent commenders (more bonapartists) and caused a great delay into the reconstituion of french navy after the revolutionary and napoleonic wars.

Both navies and arsenals needed a great work at this time.
 
There are a lot of myths about the French navy, most due to its poor perfiormance during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period when it was deprived of its officer corps

During the ARW it fought well in the Caribbean and helped towards securing American independence

After 1830, the Orleanist navy was one of the best in Europe, and this trend was continued under Napoleon III

After 1871 the navy became increasingly prey to political factionism.

Ropp's book gives an excellent view of the century after Napoleon I

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top