What "secularization" was there before 1789? As for population, even if you accept French fertility did begin to decline then (and the data is messy), there is plenty of ongoing population growth in other countries that could supply Christian migrants. And the French demographic transition happened long before anyone else, so it clearly preventable.Yeah you really need a POD before 1750. Around that time fertility started plunging in thanks to secularization. People like to blame the Napoleonic Wars, but that was barely relevant, fertility more or less stabilized after the French Revolution. Its just fertility decline takes awhile to fully bleed through into population trends. Neither secularism nor lack of surplus population are good for the purposes of this...
The Maghreb's populated area is a relatively narrow strip. Probably similar to Iberia, which was Christianized with a lot less state power available.Albania was a small country that could well of had a lower "convert critical mass" required for a true mass conversion.
For example: All surrounding villages have gone at least nominally Islamic. Now, they are enjoying the offered Ottoman carrots. The Ottoman stick is usually not that bad. Even still, this village is standing out more and more. Might as well do a nominal conversion.
But... the Maghreb is a huge area. I dont think the French could ever achieve a convert critical mass to facilate mass conversion through out the entire area. Rather, I am thinking that a 70% or so convert batting average would be restricted to certain localities. Maybe.....
- French designate two small coastal areas for carrot and stick conversion campaigns. They also approach a particularly dissatisfied Berber area(s) offering "something new, and a way out". Conversion is directed by dedicated, charismatic and..... flexible priests and teaching nuns. They know Islam far better than "cultural Muslims" do.
- The Ottoman style carrots are rolled out: Conversion can be nominal and leads to socio economic and educational advancement, citizenship opportunities, infra structure improvements, and.... bragging rights from being on the winning team.
- Increased French settlement increases the conversion pressure in the designated areas. Like the Ottomans in Albania, the French expel local "loud 'n proud" conversion refuseniks. Conversion rate grows with these uhmm.... "bad influences" removed. More isolated converts from other areas migrate to the specially designated areas. This boosts the number of local converts further and..... local convert critical mass is reached.
Today, two Mahgreb cities and surrounding areas are 70% Christian. Likewise, mountain Berber group "B" (area is a mini Albania) is also 70% Christian.
What "secularization" was there before 1789? As for population, even if you accept French fertility did begin to decline then (and the data is messy), there is plenty of ongoing population growth in other countries that could supply Christian migrants. And the French demographic transition happened long before anyone else, so it clearly preventable.
Thank you for the source. Looks very interesting and I will have a read.
France's fertility dropped off a cliff around 1760. As to secularization, it seems there was simply a widespread loss of belief in Catholicism in the 18th century shortly before that. Looking at last wills, as the attached document does, there is a very sharp decline in the number of wills identifying the testator as Catholic, in the requests for masses for one's soul, and in invocations of saints' names in such documents. Around 1700, about 90% of wills in France invoke the names of Saints or describe the Catholic belief of the testator; by 1780, that fraction is 20%. As to why, the author argues that it's a combination of cynicism about the suppression of Jansenism (which, despite appearing at times more severe than mainstream Catholicism, tended to be more popular with the middle class), cynicism about the association of church and state, and backlash against the Counter-Reformation. The decline in religiosity was most marked in places where counter-reformation authorities were also entrusted with collecting taxes (big shock there).
It's actually very reminiscent of the decline in Orthodox belief in the Tsarist state in the late 19th century--every measure they took to entwine themselves more thoroughly with the state and its repression furthered the plebeian distrust of them. And, consequently, when the leaders of each revolution took it upon themselves to pull down the altars, they found very many people willing to pull the ropes.
Preventing that transition means, essentially, keeping France as Catholic as she was in the reign of the Sun King--which would, I think, pretty drastically alter the country's history in the late 18th and 19th century.
Getting migrants from other lands is an interesting possibility--Sicily and Calabria would seem natural candidates, being close by and overrun with peasants who would soon be impoverished by Garibaldi's free-trade reforms. Spain, racked by civil war, is another possibility. Could they supply the numbers for Algeria? (EDIT: What about Ireland? Long-standing French ally, Catholic, big famine...)
Iberia was Christianized 400 ad, several hundred years prior to the Moorish occupation. Iberia was then re- Christianized in stages as the Moorish occupation was progressively rolled back.The Maghreb's populated area is a relatively narrow strip. Probably similar to Iberia, which was Christianized with a lot less state power available.
I think the answer regarding migrants would be a "yes" regarding all groups.Getting migrants from other lands is an interesting possibility--Sicily and Calabria would seem natural candidates, being close by and overrun with peasants who would soon be impoverished by Garibaldi's free-trade reforms. Spain, racked by civil war, is another possibility. Could they supply the numbers for Algeria? (EDIT: What about Ireland? Long-standing French ally, Catholic, big famine...)
I would not know about Kabyle specifically, but a French conversion campaign would likely target any areas with marginalized groups looking for "something new- and a way up".Wouldn’t the Kabyle be targeted for conversion as Otl?
I think the underlying cause is probably that the French (and more generally European) intelligentsia had mostly embraced various brands of deism or atheism by this point. After all, suppression of heretics and Church-state association had been an off-and-on factor for over a thousand years, and yet religiosity remained generally high. The novel factor in the 18th century was that there was now a well-connected and intellectually-influential group of people pointing to these things and saying, "See? I told you Christianity is a scam. Better follow our way instead."As to why, the author argues that it's a combination of cynicism about the suppression of Jansenism (which, despite appearing at times more severe than mainstream Catholicism, tended to be more popular with the middle class), cynicism about the association of church and state, and backlash against the Counter-Reformation. The decline in religiosity was most marked in places where counter-reformation authorities were also entrusted with collecting taxes (big shock there).
I think this is key. If say, Louis XV's son, Louis the Dauphin, became King, and became a popular leader, things could have been different. Let's say he both brought the Devots to power and figure headed a religious revival in France, and also managed to deal more competently with the tax crisis to avoid the revolution, things could have been very different. Halt the demographic decline with a (even temporary) fertility bump and you can have far more Catholic migrants. And have a more religous French administrative elite willing to really focus on religious conversion and you get a lot more carrots and sticks.I think the underlying cause is probably that the French (and more generally European) intelligentsia had mostly embraced various brands of deism or atheism by this point. After all, suppression of heretics and Church-state association had been an off-and-on factor for over a thousand years, and yet religiosity remained generally high. The novel factor in the 18th century was that there was now a well-connected and intellectually-influential group of people pointing to these things and saying, "See? I told you Christianity is a scam. Better follow our way instead."
You can see a similar dynamic in politics as well. When everyone in a country believes in democracy, corruption and incompetence in government is generally held to be the fault of the individuals in power, not of democracy per se. When there's some alternative system on offer -- communism, fascism, military dictatorship, whatever -- people are much more likely to conclude that the current arrangement is itself flawed, and needs to be fundamentally changed.
I think this is key. If say, Louis XV's son, Louis the Dauphin, became King, and became a popular leader, things could have been different. Let's say he both brought the Devots to power and figure headed a religious revival in France, and also managed to deal more competently with the tax crisis to avoid the revolution, things could have been very different. Halt the demographic decline with a (even temporary) fertility bump and you can have far more Catholic migrants. And have a more religous French administrative elite willing to really focus on religious conversion and you get a lot more carrots and sticks.
Indeed. That’s why for such mass-scale conversions you’d need France to co-opt local elites or have local peoples convert establishing a solid Christian base of support (I.e. Lebanon)It is worth noting that this project of outright ethnoreligious replacement and conversion would have analogues, in modern Europe, only to the Cromwellian settlement of Ireland. On a smaller scale, it would compare to the expulsion of the Huguenots.
This would be a big shift in the realm of the imaginable, all the more so because North Africa was outside of the territory of the French monarchy. Certainly there was little love for the Barbary States but I think this campaign would be deeply controversial even in Christian Europe.
Indeed. That’s why for such mass-scale conversions you’d need France to co-opt local elites or have local peoples convert establishing a solid Christian base of support (I.e. Lebanon)
For this you’d need a more competent Catholic government as well as avoiding the Restoration’s botched endeavor (i.e. Napoleon III leading a conquest rather than salvaging the mess the Bourbons and the July Monarchy left for him). Charles X being the fool he was, botched a conquest alienating any potential supporters in Algeria with his heavy handed efforts. The proper thing to do would have been to extract concessions, slowly weakening the Dey’s authority while allying with other factions.
They could have invited the French in or possibly France could have gotten a better pretext for invasion being seen by some as an agent of liberation rather than as a foreign conqueror.