Implications of a more powerful French Navy

[phx1138]

Following on this thread.

With a POD around 1500, if France is richer (for whatever reason, I don't care what) & the French Navy is thus also more powerful, what does that mean for naval developments? It seems to accelrate the development of the French 74-gun ship, for a start. Does it have other implications?

Does it force Britain to build substantially more ships?

If Britain does have to build more ships, does this lead to an earlier "wood crisis" & a turn to coal?

In that event, does it produce an earlier Industrial Revolution?

 

[katchen]

Norway is much more interesting than France

France has the limitations of being hemmed in by Great Britain on one side, Spain on another and a lack of good harbors that we have discussed before. Also, too many continental enemies that force Spain to put it's energies into a strong army.
If we want Great Britain to have a strong naval competitor developing a strong naval tradition, able to go anywhere in the world, having the resources to build ships and NEEDING a navy, the obvious candidate for such a competitor with a POD of 1500 is a Norway which gains it's independence from Denmark at the same time Sweden does.
With it's multitude of natural harbors in fjords and timber for shipbuilding and limited arable land but ice free waters and fisheries, Norway is a natural for a naval power despite it's small population. And if Norway prospers through trade and naval power the same way England does, that population can grow. AND...with Norway's aboundant waterpower resources, Norway can start at least the beginnings of industrialization before having to bring in coal, perhaps from Svalbard, which it did ITTL before it discovered natural gas.

 

[phx1138]

obvious candidate for such a competitor with a POD of 1500 is a Norway

Probably, but not the question.

 

[Matteo]

An independant Norway would have been no match for Britain. Do you realize the difference in population and ressources between the 2 countries ?

 

[zeppelinair]

I don't think being forced from wood to coal leads to the industrial revolution. The main thing about the industrial revolution was that steam power was needed not only for coal mining but also for textile production- which wouldnt need to increase until about the 1750s.

 

[Elfwine]

I don't think being forced from wood to coal leads to the industrial revolution. The main thing about the industrial revolution was that steam power was needed not only for coal mining but also for textile production- which wouldnt need to increase until about the 1750s.

There's no reason why that couldn't be increased earlier, though.

A lot depends though on what markets are available - there's no point in creasing production faster than demand.

 

[David S Poepoe]

With a POD around 1500, if France is richer (for whatever reason, I don't care what) & the French Navy is thus also more powerful, what does that mean for naval developments? It seems to accelrate the development of the French 74-gun ship, for a start. Does it have other implications?

A larger Royal Navy - especially since there are so many additional ships that the English will seize, and incorporate into their fleet, after defeating the French in battle. The French are not much of a maritime nation.

 

[phx1138]

I don't think being forced from wood to coal leads to the industrial revolution. The main thing about the industrial revolution was that steam power was needed not only for coal mining but also for textile production- which wouldnt need to increase until about the 1750s.

As I understand it, there was a shift from wood to coal & coke (& I don't recall which came first), which enabled development of an industry for producing iron implements (cooking pots, frex), which drove demand for mining, which drove demand for steam engines, which spawned Newcomen's engine.

The French are not much of a maritime nation.

OTL, I would agree. TTL, that isn't necessarily true. Is it?

 

[Elfwine]

OTL, I would agree. TTL, that isn't necessarily true. Is it?

It shouldn't be a given.

The idea that France is destined to fail at sea bothers me, and I say this as someone who would argue France is inevitably going to be continental and land power leaning short of some really extreme divergence (plain and simple, it suits France's strengths and interests).

But it was able to design better ships than the British in the late 18th century OTL, and Brittany's sailors (admittedly based on something mentioned almost in passing in a book on the frigates of the Royal Navy) are apparently quality material.

There's potential here. Maybe it would take a fairly early and substantial POD, but it was an option.

 

[Hurrah!Praga!]

Wasn't 1500 smack in the middle of the Italian Wars? The French and Spanish navies are going to do battle. It might be enough of an advantage to give France a "victory" in the Italian Wars, though given French leadership and Spanish tercios nothing is for sure.

 

[phx1138]

It shouldn't be a given.

The idea that France is destined to fail at sea bothers me, and I say this as someone who would argue France is inevitably going to be continental and land power leaning short of some really extreme divergence (plain and simple, it suits France's strengths and interests).

That's my thinking, too. I'm not going to for a second say this would turn France into "Britain Lite", but if it makes France as big a threat to Brit trade in the 1500s even remotely close to U-boats in WW2 (& that's overstating what I expect quite a bit)...

The difference need not be huge to have perceptible & far-reaching impact.

But it was able to design better ships than the British in the late 18th century OTL, and Brittany's sailors (admittedly based on something mentioned almost in passing in a book on the frigates of the Royal Navy) are apparently quality material.

There's potential here. Maybe it would take a fairly early and substantial POD, but it was an option.

I think that's in play. A France with slightly different colonial interests is going to react differently (more aggressively?) to RN interference. RN can't ignore that. A more successful France (more money from colonies, as I'm presuming) is going to be less inclined to back down.

And we have a naval arms race.

Wasn't 1500 smack in the middle of the Italian Wars? The French and Spanish navies are going to do battle. It might be enough of an advantage to give France a "victory" in the Italian Wars, though given French leadership and Spanish tercios nothing is for sure.

That's just starting, & AFAICT (from little more than a cursory look), naval matters didn't impact much.

I'd agree, tho: it looks good for French victory there.

 

[Iori]

It depends on when, afterall before the late 17th century Britain was'nt the primary Naval power (and it would'nt become the dominant one until the late 18th/early 19th centuries), so it could lead to an England that's more oriented towards not getting into fights with other European countries (unless they're smaller and not allied to a larger one) and more concerned with trade, so basically the Netherlands, but larger and slightly more armed.

 

[Elfwine]

That's my thinking, too. I'm not going to for a second say this would turn France into "Britain Lite", but if it makes France as big a threat to Brit trade in the 1500s even remotely close to U-boats in WW2 (& that's overstating what I expect quite a bit)...

The difference need not be huge to have perceptible & far-reaching impact.

Yeah. OTL we see the Royal Navy even before it became The Naval Power having a significant impact on things in Britain's favor - having naval pressure of the same sort applied to England (say, during the Wars of Spanish Succession*) and you create much trouble for France's opponents.

I think that's in play. A France with slightly different colonial interests is going to react differently (more aggressively?) to RN interference. RN can't ignore that. A more successful France (more money from colonies, as I'm presuming) is going to be less inclined to back down.

And we have a naval arms race.

I wonder how that would look in the age of wooden ships. Good ship building timber is not that common - either for hulls or masts.

Not impossible to find, but its a thing that would become an even more valuable commodity than OTL very quickly.


*: Yes, I know it was both England and the Netherlands blockading France there. Point is, have England be the one blockaded, and England is hard pressed to meaningfully contribute. And even if Louis got some of what he wanted, it was hardly total victory thanks in part to English efforts.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

What if france does not pursue the "Italian" adventures, but pursues "other" goals.

Lets assume France is conducting a better military campaign against Maximilian. (maybe this also butterflies away the Spanish Habsburgs )

France wins the Battle of Guinegate (which secured Flandres for Maximilian OTL)
Later in the treaty of Senlis (1493) France even had to give back some territories (Artois, Franche Comte).

So if we assume France keeps those territories and gets Flandres then France might find it necesssary to build a fleet (first against the Spanish then later against the Dutch and British)

Don't forget that france even had a religous war going on in teh second half of the 16th century. Lets butterfly that away and allow religious freedom for teh Huguenots - they stay in french and no war means a betetr development fior france

This way France could even win the "rhine border" during the 30 years war.

In addition a better late 16th century gives France the opportunity to establish settler colonies in North america (in addition to Quebec and New ORleans maybe a colony in the (OTL) Carolinas. This forces France to build MORE ships...

OTOH Spain - having a free hand in Italy might conquer the whole Pensinsula (maybe with the exception of Savoy which would go to France)

 

[Simreeve]

But it was able to design better ships than the British in the late 18th century OTL,

Arguable. According to books that I've read, the French designs were theoretically better and did have a slight advantage in speed initially... but that came at the expense of structural strength which meant that they wore out a lot more quickly... which, as IOTL the French had less in the way of shipyards than the British did, meant that once hostiliies began the ratio of ships available would have this factor helping the British too. Captured French ships taken into the RN were normally sent into our own shipyards for strengthening before use.
Also, IOTL, the French were slower than the British to adopt either the use of copper plating against fouling or the steering wheel

 

[Elfwine]

Arguable. According to books that I've read, the French designs were theoretically better and did have a slight advantage in speed initially... but that came at the expense of structural strength which meant that they wore out a lot more quickly... which, as IOTL the French had less in the way of shipyards than the British did, meant that once hostiliies began the ratio of ships available would have this factor helping the British too. Captured French ships taken into the RN were normally sent into our own shipyards for strengthening before use.
Also, IOTL, the French were slower than the British to adopt either the use of copper plating against fouling or the steering wheel

This sounds credible. But I would not say OTL British designs were the best possible designs (this is looking at the 18th century) - a little too small for their guns. Not cripplingly - just that they were as small as such permitted, as opposed to the French longer model (though longer and fragile isn't a good combination in a wooden ship, so . . .).

But the issue of copper plating and the steering wheel - those are big differences. And ones that would explain the overall consistently better performance of the Royal Navy - I mean, if French ships were that damn good, that would show. It really doesn't, except for a handful of occasions with frigates and lower (from my reading).

I wonder if a French navy that just adopts those kind of things faster, and in general builds better with what it had - not something as great as phx's POD - would do enough better to matter. Copper was worth every penny.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

The French Navy was second rank to the British Navy because it was never able to win (and it never won because it was second rank). The French just didn't need their navy in the way the Brits did.

The French had the better designs (ton for ton) but never comitted to a policy to challange the British Fleet. Look at the structral changes to the RN between 1650 and 1750, they centralised and standarised ensuring that whilst the men and materials may have been the same as the French they were put in a place that would do the RN the most good. The French didn't do this until the 1820's.

This allowed the British to be at sea for longer (therfore better training) and to have regular gun practice (again the raw material of seaman were able to improve). Sailors could get promotion both on their current ship, but also if they enlisted on a new ship. The officers were all trained in navigation etc.

The Brits generally were intrested in trade and that means ships, the French (and I know this is generaling wildly) were more interested in territory and that ment an army.

 

[phx1138]

Yeah. OTL we see the Royal Navy even before it became The Naval Power having a significant impact on things in Britain's favor - having naval pressure of the same sort applied to England (say, during the Wars of Spanish Succession*) and you create much trouble for France's opponents.
...Yes, I know it was both England and the Netherlands blockading France there. Point is, have England be the one blockaded, and England is hard pressed to meaningfully contribute. And even if Louis got some of what he wanted, it was hardly total victory thanks in part to English efforts.

You need not even do that, necessarily. Making the blockade harder by increasing the power of the French opposition means increased Brit losses. That alone provokes the desired response.

I wonder how that would look in the age of wooden ships. Good ship building timber is not that common - either for hulls or masts.

Not impossible to find, but its a thing that would become an even more valuable commodity than OTL very quickly.

I'm seeing three options: better ships, better weapons on existing ships, or new sources of timber. I imagine you'd get all three. That leaves me wondering when Britain started tapping Newfoundland timber, & how well protected timber convoys would be...

Bear in mind, in this era, convoys could get damned enormous: I've seen mention of 500 ships. The value of ship timber would probably see heavy escort, too.

copper plating and the steering wheel - those are big differences. And ones that would explain the overall consistently better performance of the Royal Navy - I mean, if French ships were that damn good, that would show. It really doesn't, except for a handful of occasions with frigates and lower (from my reading).

I wonder if a French navy that just adopts those kind of things faster, and in general builds better with what it had - not something as great as phx's POD - would do enough better to matter. Copper was worth every penny.

Don't overestimate my intent, here. These kinds of changes need a grasp of their importance, & they're big ones for a navy not adopting them. So, a change to the French Navy that leads to them is on the right scale for me. The questions I have are, why does it happen TTL, as opposed to why it didn't? More ships, alone, don't drive that AFAICT.

A bit more combat experience, & a handful more captured Brit ships, which show better construction, OTOH...

Something else: how soon is the "lime juicer" solution found & adopted? France getting to that first would be big.

What if france does not pursue the "Italian" adventures, but pursues "other" goals.

Lets assume France is conducting a better military campaign against Maximilian. (maybe this also butterflies away the Spanish Habsburgs )

France wins the Battle of Guinegate (which secured Flandres for Maximilian OTL)
Later in the treaty of Senlis (1493) France even had to give back some territories (Artois, Franche Comte).

I've been presuming POD later than that...

Lets butterfly that away and allow religious freedom for teh Huguenots

I want to see a reason for that.

In addition a better late 16th century gives France the opportunity to establish settler colonies in North america (in addition to Quebec and New ORleans maybe a colony in the (OTL) Carolinas. This forces France to build MORE ships...

I'm also presuming at least one colony in either the OTL Carolinas, Bahamas, Bermuda, or somewhere (Cuba?) to explain the increased wealth to begin with. That does mean more French ships, agreed.

OTOH Spain - having a free hand in Italy might conquer the whole Pensinsula (maybe with the exception of Savoy which would go to France)

Given OTL French actions, I'm unclear why she'd give Spain a free hand anywhere...

This allowed the British to be at sea for longer (therfore better training)

This was an issue I was thinking of, myself.

the French ... more interested in territory and that ment an army.

And this is the hardest thing to overcome: an inclination to be continental, not naval. The same problem our friends Napoleon & Hitler had.

 

[Elfwine]

Don't overestimate my intent, here. These kinds of changes need a grasp of their importance, & they're big ones for a navy not adopting them. So, a change to the French Navy that leads to them is on the right scale for me. The questions I have are, why does it happen TTL, as opposed to why it didn't? More ships, alone, don't drive that AFAICT.

Well, you mentioned a richer France. That has impacts beyond just "What if France makes better decisions"?

A bit more combat experience, & a handful more captured Brit ships, which show better construction, OTOH...


Something else: how soon is the "lime juicer" solution found & adopted? France getting to that first would be big.

Yeah. And there's no actual reason it had to take as long as it did OTL - the technology involved was pretty static, and plants are plants.

Secret is someone doing what was done OTL - if you just have the attitude that long voyages mean scurvy, no progress is going to be made. Fatalism is stupid like that.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

PHX1138:

You mentioneed "around 1500", so I choose Gunegate and Senlis

Huguenots - I really have no idea how to do it, but Iit might work like the pilgrims of OTL, send them away to a settler colony

Spain in Italy - my reasong is:
France is more interested in the North (and colonies)
France beats Maximilian, The Habsburgs are weaker and don't marry into the Spanish Royal House. Thus France does NOT feel entangled by the Habsburgs (and the Spanish don't get the Netherlands )

Spain is not as powerful as OTL AND Frnace likes that Spain is occupied in Italy instead of being interested in the French South