Migration to New France after a victory in the Seven Years War?

So if France somehow comes out of the American Theatre of the Seven Years War victorious* and Montcalm's valiant defence of the colony makes the King more interested in peopling it, how many settlers would they be able to ferry over before the next major conflict kicks off (for simplicity's sake we'll say it's still the American Revolutionary War which still starts in in the 1770s). Would Louisiana having a larger French population result in it being governed more from New Orleans or would it continue to be subject to Quebec?

*on that note, is there any consensus regarding what wartime PoD would best achieve this outcome?
 
Last edited:
Most likely, it'll just remain a minor backwater, with population clustered around the St. Lawrence.

What I do see is Anglo encroachment upon New France over time. That'll be trouble for France.
 

samcster94

Banned
I doubt there'd be much change given France spent much of the 18th century bankrupt. Regardless of whether the OTL 1770's conflict comes or France's bigger problems which predate the war come first, the region will be vulnerable.
 
I doubt there'd be much change given France spent much of the 18th century bankrupt. Regardless of whether the OTL 1770's conflict comes or France's bigger problems which predate the war come first, the region will be vulnerable.
The budgetary situation was pretty bad but to my understanding it was relatively stable between the Seven Years War and the American Revolutionary War, and the continued existence of a strong French East India Company might ease the budgetary issues a bit.

Also on the topic of budget, New France was not profitable (but was kept around as it was considered to be a good hard stop on British expansion) so sending over settlers to make the colony more self sufficient (especially in terms of defence, as building and manning forts was a massive part of New France's upkeep) could be justified under the idea of balancing the budget. Since France was also suffering over population by the late 1700s I could see an effort being made ease off some pressure from the metropolitan. Even if its a minor injection of a few hundred people per year that's still a massive demographic boost for New France, especially if the newcomers adopt the local traditions of the Habitants such as having particularly large families and fathering children with natives.
 
and the continued existence of a strong French East India Company might ease the budgetary issues a bit.

Quite the opposite, I think. If it's like the BEIC, it'll lose money in its early years as a hegemonic company before being profitable. It'll be facing numerous costly wars with Mysore, and its great rockets, as well as with the Marathas, and their substantial military power. Not really the best way to get a France with financial stability.
 
Quite the opposite, I think. If it's like the BEIC, it'll lose money in its early years as a hegemonic company before being profitable. It'll be facing numerous costly wars with Mysore, and its great rockets, as well as with the Marathas, and their substantial military power. Not really the best way to get a France with financial stability.
It was profitable for most of the 1700s, and I don't see it becoming hegemonic even in the event of a French victory. Whereas Britain was able to annex Bengal and take most of France's Indian holdings the FEIC didn't have the manpower necessary for that. So likely, just as in North America, victory means not losing, rather than actually gaining. So the FEIC is unlikely to have the head on collision with the rest of the subcontinent that Britain had after the Seven Years War.

And with regards to Mysore specifically, Hyder Ali was actually pretty tight with the French. So if anything Mysore is a stabilizing factor in France's economic penetration of southern India.
 
It was profitable for most of the 1700s, and I don't see it becoming hegemonic even in the event of a French victory. Whereas Britain was able to annex Bengal and take most of France's Indian holdings the FEIC didn't have the manpower necessary for that. So likely, just as in North America, victory means not losing, rather than actually gaining. So the FEIC is unlikely to have the head on collision with the rest of the subcontinent that Britain had after the Seven Years War.

Probably. It would still have much of South India, and that naturally brings it into conflict with the local powers.

Also, the BEIC did have major financial issues which ultimately climaxed with its nationalization, and I suspect any FEIC would share similar issues even if its leadership isn't as incompetent.

And with regards to Mysore specifically, Hyder Ali was actually pretty tight with the French. So if anything Mysore is a stabilizing factor in France's economic penetration of southern India.

Much of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan's alliances with the French rose because of opposition to British colonies along the Western Ghats. ITTL, those are going to remain French colonies, and so Mysore will be opposed to France. And France will likely not have the manpower to take over Mysore, so it'll likely have to suffer from a powerful kingdom with a technological advantage.

That can all be avoided if you can somehow butterfly away Hyder Ali's accession to the throne in 1761, but I don't see how that could work.
 
Didn't France try to colonize French Guyana with settlers after losing Canada? According to Wikipedia they sent 12,000 settlers, who mostly died. If they had sent those 12,000 to Canada they mostly would have survived, and would have increased French Canada's population by 20%. Could France have not done that a few times and gotten Canada to be more self sufficient?

Somewhat related question, but it's generally agreed that New France's huge population disadvantage was the primary reason for its fall (There were something like 60,000 French to 1.2 million British in North America at the outbreak of the Seven Years' War). What population would New France have needed to be relatively safe from British conquest? If New France had say, 120,000-200,000 people (which to me, seems entirely possible with different policies of Louis XIV and XV), would its survival have been more or less ensured?
 
Much of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan's alliances with the French rose because of opposition to British colonies along the Western Ghats. ITTL, those are going to remain French colonies, and so Mysore will be opposed to France.
His ties to France aren't that shallow, he fought along side the French durring the Carnatic Wars and the men he commanded prior to becoming Sultan of Mysore had French advisors. Hyder and the French are fairly likely to reach something approximating a mutual understanding.
 
Didn't France try to colonize French Guyana with settlers after losing Canada? According to Wikipedia they sent 12,000 settlers, who mostly died. If they had sent those 12,000 to Canada they mostly would have survived, and would have increased French Canada's population by 20%. Could France have not done that a few times and gotten Canada to be more self sufficient?
Quick check on the wiki says that the French did indeed send 12,000 people to Guyana. Perhaps France could also jump on the idea of penal colonies earlier than OTL (not established until 1851) and decided that the interior forts would be excellent prisons.

Somewhat related question, but it's generally agreed that New France's huge population disadvantage was the primary reason for its fall (There were something like 60,000 French to 1.2 million British in North America at the outbreak of the Seven Years' War). What population would New France have needed to be relatively safe from British conquest? If New France had say, 120,000-200,000 people (which to me, seems entirely possible with different policies of Louis XIV and XV), would its survival have been more or less ensured?
All New France really needs to survive is for the Ohio Valley and the southern most regions of Louisiana to be at similar settler densities to OTL's St. Lawrence River Valley. The Appalachians will reduce the "Texas Effect" to a trickle that some French version of the NWMP/Texas Rangers could deal with. Defence in a real war would still mainly come down to what France is willing to have stationed there, but it's worth remembering that the Thirteen Colonies' militias were also pretty dependant on British regulars when it came to anything more than raiding natives.
 
Last edited:
Didn't France try to colonize French Guyana with settlers after losing Canada? According to Wikipedia they sent 12,000 settlers, who mostly died. If they had sent those 12,000 to Canada they mostly would have survived, and would have increased French Canada's population by 20%. Could France have not done that a few times and gotten Canada to be more self sufficient?

Somewhat related question, but it's generally agreed that New France's huge population disadvantage was the primary reason for its fall (There were something like 60,000 French to 1.2 million British in North America at the outbreak of the Seven Years' War). What population would New France have needed to be relatively safe from British conquest? If New France had say, 120,000-200,000 people (which to me, seems entirely possible with different policies of Louis XIV and XV), would its survival have been more or less ensured?

I think it is hard (though not impossible) for France to maintain control of the Ohio Valley even with that population, given that it borders the very populous British American colonies, which are going to want to push further west. But something like OTL Canada could probably be retained. Québec occupies a strategic location and invading it is logistically difficult. Give it a larger population to supply its militia and it may never fall.

Louisiana I feel could go either way. It is further west and thus has more of a geographical buffer. Anglophones OTL didn't start to migrate in that direction until after 1800, and that was despite having British/American control of all the land in between since 1763. France has some time to build up its population, if it chooses to do so.
 
Something interesting that I stumbled up on, apparently the French population of Canada was around 120,000 by the time of the French revolution, meaning that through natural growth alone its population had nearly doubled in 30 years (New France had around 70,000 french people at the time of the conquest). Also it's worth noting that the St. Lawrence river valley was starting to hit its pre-industrial carrying capacity by the early 1800s, so its quite likely that settlement outside the valley will start to significantly increase from the 1770s on, even without government directives.
 
The biggest problem with French settlement of Canada was the lack of incentive. Rather than freeholders, the French set up the seigneury system, did not provide much in the way of local governance or rights. At least in the British colonies, the trip across the pond led to the prospect of greater wealth and rights. What did the French offer?
 
Didn't France try to colonize French Guyana with settlers after losing Canada? According to Wikipedia they sent 12,000 settlers, who mostly died. If they had sent those 12,000 to Canada they mostly would have survived, and would have increased French Canada's population by 20%. Could France have not done that a few times and gotten Canada to be more self sufficient?

Somewhat related question, but it's generally agreed that New France's huge population disadvantage was the primary reason for its fall (There were something like 60,000 French to 1.2 million British in North America at the outbreak of the Seven Years' War). What population would New France have needed to be relatively safe from British conquest? If New France had say, 120,000-200,000 people (which to me, seems entirely possible with different policies of Louis XIV and XV), would its survival have been more or less ensured?

The population disparity was only part of the reason the French lost in north america. the biggest reason is that Britain was able to rule the seas and send men and supplies, while France was prevented from doing so, and was concentrating efforts on the continent.
 
Top