Increased French influence in North America

If we can get a POD before the 1500s how much influence could the French have in North America?
 
State-sponsored settlement, successful colonies in Florida, and not giving up all the territory east of the Mississippi in unsuccessful wars would be a start.

French identity is strong in Quebec to this day. Without an American revolution, perhaps there'd be no large settlement of Americans in upper Canada, and the region remains French-speaking, with ripples out west and south along fur-trading routes.
 
That sounds like a good idea. Given the challenges France faced colonizing North America OTL was it likely that this would happen would it always be more of an unlikely turn of events? How big does the population of French North America get?
 
That sounds like a good idea. Given the challenges France faced colonizing North America OTL was it likely that this would happen would it always be more of an unlikely turn of events? How big does the population of French North America get?

I think the example of British North America shows that French North America could have a population of around 3-4 million whites by 1800. But to get that way, you'd definitely need a 16th century POD to get the French involved in North America as early as possible, and get them in more businesses than the fur trade.
 
What would be the balance of power in North America? Would the 13 colonies still collectively be more powerful than the French colonies?
 
That depends on if the French can get the Indians to outbreed the English colonists. If France can create a native state west of the the Appalachians with a population of over a million, they will have established a permanent power base in North America.

Just building up a white population alone isn't enough to stop the English.
 
Could the English colonies be turned against each other? Perhaps they could portray themselves as a buffer nation between Spanish and English America? It would reduce how fast the Indian population would need to expand.
 
State-sponsored settlement, successful colonies in Florida, and not giving up all the territory east of the Mississippi in unsuccessful wars would be a start.

French identity is strong in Quebec to this day. Without an American revolution, perhaps there'd be no large settlement of Americans in upper Canada, and the region remains French-speaking, with ripples out west and south along fur-trading routes.

This really. There needs to be more settlement sponsored by the state to increase the population in certain areas (Louisiana for instance) which will allow for population growth. Accepting non-Frenchmen in larger numbers could also be a good start later in history.
 
Invent vaccines and give it to the Native Americans, and give them huge subsidies per family on each child they have (some sort of reverse of China's One Child program).
 
French scientist monks discover vaccines and inoculate thousands of Canadian natives.
Worse European wars create thousands of refugees, mass emigration to France, over-population in France, famines in France, etc. to encourage more Frenchmen to emigrate to North America.
New France includes the Atlantic Coast down to the Massachewsetts border, most of the Great Lakes and most of the Mississippi watershed.
 
That depends on if the French can get the Indians to outbreed the English colonists. If France can create a native state west of the the Appalachians with a population of over a million, they will have established a permanent power base in North America.

Just building up a white population alone isn't enough to stop the English.

Why would you necessarily need Indians any more than the English did? If you have a border at the Appalachians, and maybe 1-2 million Frenchmen in the region (counting slaves, allied Indians, etc.), then not a square inch of land is going to be ceded. The Appalachians are very defensible, and as long as the Gulf Coast is protected, then the Englishmen simply aren't getting through. It would be too expensive to conquer the land.
 
Why would you necessarily need Indians any more than the English did? If you have a border at the Appalachians, and maybe 1-2 million Frenchmen in the region (counting slaves, allied Indians, etc.), then not a square inch of land is going to be ceded. The Appalachians are very defensible, and as long as the Gulf Coast is protected, then the Englishmen simply aren't getting through. It would be too expensive to conquer the land.

The problem is that one can settle the territory bordering western Appalachians only after :
- either settling the territory bordering eastern Appalachians and the Atlantic coast,
- or settling the Ohio valley and the Mississippi basin.

So you need an early POD.
 
why start with OTL French North America and figure how to make it stronger? The OP called for a POD before 1500. you can write any story you want. NA is almost literally a blank slate, and you can choose to divvy it up any way you want. It isn't destiny for Britain to take the OTL colonies and France to take Canada/Louisiana.

Any way you slice it up, though, you need to have France take populating the colonies more seriously from an early date. You also have to add in France taking it's navy a little more seriously. They basically lost Canada because they were completely blocked from being able to give it any assistance after the opening months. It doesn't matter whether they wanted or didn't want to send reinforcements. the lack of a navy meant the point was moot.
 
The problem is that one can settle the territory bordering western Appalachians only after :
- either settling the territory bordering eastern Appalachians and the Atlantic coast,
- or settling the Ohio valley and the Mississippi basin.

So you need an early POD.

But we can see in OTL that the English were rather slow at pushing up against the Appalachians. If France pushes colonialism about as hard, the French can follow the rivers to their sources and be settling the western Appalachians about the same time they're meeting Englishmen from the eastern side.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I'm not certain about the validity of the claim, but I've seen it argued that quite a few native peoples sided with France against Britain because the French were rather thin on the ground, and thus less busy pushing these natives off their land than the British. If that's true, then it must be taken into account that increasing the French population will be likely to turn more Native Americans against France, and PODs that increase the number of Natives may end up being detrimental to the French cause. (But again, I'm not sure about the accuracy of this idea-- just figured I'd raise it here, so it can be discussed.)

All in all, the French state pursuing a coherent and goal-oriented colonisation strategy, with incentives for settlement and mass transportation of prisoners and the destitute poor to North America, seems like the best improvement for French North America. Clear allocation of settlements, and good agreements with Native peoples about lines of settlement, would also help keep trouble on that front to a minimum. The largher population means more fighting men by definition, and increases North America's relative importance for France-- which means more dedication to defending and keeping it. That, in turn, may well lead to French victories in the inevitable colonial conflict. The British east coast colonies would be hemmed in completely. Even if France claims Britain's Hudon Bay lands, I suspect they couldn't make that claim stick easily (same way British forts were in the old North-West territory for years and years after the ARW, despite their obligatio to withdraw). Given Britain's limited options, I can see Britain trying to make a go for land on the west coast, which would prompt a race to the west against France.

By the 1770s, you could see North America looking something like this:

alt1770.png

(Quickly edited from an existing map)

A big consequence of all this would be that the British east coast colonies remain very much threatened by France, so they'll hardly be inclined to secede and form a USA-analogue. So it may well turn out that Britain retains North American colonies with a much larger population base than OTL Canada in this ATL! French success in various colonial wars (assuming they don't lose big elsewhere) would meanwhile mean that France receives indeminities afterwards, rather than having to pay them. That, the larger (an presumably far more prosperous and thus revenue-yielding) French North America, and the lack of an ARW (and thus of costlt Frenxh involvement) also wipes out all the economic causes that led to the French revolution in OTL.

The world is going to be very different.
 
I'm not certain about the validity of the claim, but I've seen it argued that quite a few native peoples sided with France against Britain because the French were rather thin on the ground, and thus less busy pushing these natives off their land than the British. If that's true, then it must be taken into account that increasing the French population will be likely to turn more Native Americans against France, and PODs that increase the number of Natives may end up being detrimental to the French cause. (But again, I'm not sure about the accuracy of this idea-- just figured I'd raise it here, so it can be discussed.)

I'm pretty sure this was the case. A lot of narratives on the colonisation of North America focus on the French with their light settlement and being friends with the Indians, and the British with their heavy settlement and constant treaty breaking. We can assume that if France goes for the same intense settlement strategy as the British, then they'll provoke many wars with the American Indians. But on the other hand, with enough people grinding the natives down, it would work to France's advantage in the end (they have reserves, the natives don't), and serve to mostly eliminate the American Indians as a major player in Eastern North America. Otherwise, many could still be convinced to fight the British or British-allied groups.

Basically, we have to have France beat the British at their own game. And that's not really implausible for them to do so, if they have a few decades head start and geography on their side.

All in all, the French state pursuing a coherent and goal-oriented colonisation strategy, with incentives for settlement and mass transportation of prisoners and the destitute poor to North America, seems like the best improvement for French North America. Clear allocation of settlements, and good agreements with Native peoples about lines of settlement, would also help keep trouble on that front to a minimum. The largher population means more fighting men by definition, and increases North America's relative importance for France-- which means more dedication to defending and keeping it. That, in turn, may well lead to French victories in the inevitable colonial conflict. The British east coast colonies would be hemmed in completely. Even if France claims Britain's Hudon Bay lands, I suspect they couldn't make that claim stick easily (same way British forts were in the old North-West territory for years and years after the ARW, despite their obligatio to withdraw). Given Britain's limited options, I can see Britain trying to make a go for land on the west coast, which would prompt a race to the west against France.

By the 1770s, you could see North America looking something like this:

View attachment 343506
(Quickly edited from an existing map)

A big consequence of all this would be that the British east coast colonies remain very much threatened by France, so they'll hardly be inclined to secede and form a USA-analogue. So it may well turn out that Britain retains North American colonies with a much larger population base than OTL Canada in this ATL! French success in various colonial wars (assuming they don't lose big elsewhere) would meanwhile mean that France receives indeminities afterwards, rather than having to pay them. That, the larger (an presumably far more prosperous and thus revenue-yielding) French North America, and the lack of an ARW (and thus of costlt Frenxh involvement) also wipes out all the economic causes that led to the French revolution in OTL.

The world is going to be very different.

Seems about right. Even if France somehow loses Quebec, they could stick with Louisiana which with some development would rapidly become very profitable (especially once somehow invents the cotton gin). It does rely on keeping Saint-Domingue though.

Although even if the Thirteen Colonies are confined behind the Applachians, they could still become a very substantial force in British politics by their demographic weight and economic importance.
 
Good points on the relationship between British and French America. If the French have such a threat to their east would they still have the capacity to fend off the Spanish to the west and south?
 
Last edited:
Good points on the relationship between British and French America. If the French have such a threat to their east would they still have the capacity to fend off the Spanish to the west and south?

They can just let the Comanche do the job for them in the west, from the south as long as France keeps control of Haiti they're pretty much fine since it's a perfect base for reinforcing the mainland colonies as well as preventing the Spanish from attacking them.
 
I'm not certain about the validity of the claim, but I've seen it argued that quite a few native peoples sided with France against Britain because the French were rather thin on the ground, and thus less busy pushing these natives off their land than the British. If that's true, then it must be taken into account that increasing the French population will be likely to turn more Native Americans against France, and PODs that increase the number of Natives may end up being detrimental to the French cause. (But again, I'm not sure about the accuracy of this idea-- just figured I'd raise it here, so it can be discussed.)

All in all, the French state pursuing a coherent and goal-oriented colonisation strategy, with incentives for settlement and mass transportation of prisoners and the destitute poor to North America, seems like the best improvement for French North America. Clear allocation of settlements, and good agreements with Native peoples about lines of settlement, would also help keep trouble on that front to a minimum. The largher population means more fighting men by definition, and increases North America's relative importance for France-- which means more dedication to defending and keeping it. That, in turn, may well lead to French victories in the inevitable colonial conflict. The British east coast colonies would be hemmed in completely. Even if France claims Britain's Hudon Bay lands, I suspect they couldn't make that claim stick easily (same way British forts were in the old North-West territory for years and years after the ARW, despite their obligatio to withdraw). Given Britain's limited options, I can see Britain trying to make a go for land on the west coast, which would prompt a race to the west against France.

By the 1770s, you could see North America looking something like this:

View attachment 343506
(Quickly edited from an existing map)

A big consequence of all this would be that the British east coast colonies remain very much threatened by France, so they'll hardly be inclined to secede and form a USA-analogue. So it may well turn out that Britain retains North American colonies with a much larger population base than OTL Canada in this ATL! French success in various colonial wars (assuming they don't lose big elsewhere) would meanwhile mean that France receives indeminities afterwards, rather than having to pay them. That, the larger (an presumably far more prosperous and thus revenue-yielding) French North America, and the lack of an ARW (and thus of costlt Frenxh involvement) also wipes out all the economic causes that led to the French revolution in OTL.

The world is going to be very different.

Concerning your map, I can't see Hudson's Bay company retaining control of its territories if inhabitable Canada remains french.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Concerning your map, I can't see Hudson's Bay company retaining control of its territories if inhabitable Canada remains french.

May be true, though as far as I understand it, the area was accessed in large part through trading factories adjecent to, well, Hudson's Bay. Not primarily via what was then called Canada. That's why I figured that it could remain a functional area for exploitation by the British, while overland power projection by the French would be practically nil.

Of course, losing the rest of Canada may simply cause Britain to give up on the whole Hudson's Bay venture anyway.
 
Top