No Edict of Fontainebleau

What if, in an act of good foresight, Louis XIV stubbornly decides against issuing the Edict of Fontainebleau? I foresee a few sets of consequences because of this:
  • First of all, the huge amount of skilled Huguenots would not leave France, meaning that the nation would be overall richer and more powerful in its upcoming wars.
  • Protestant nations would have less reason to be angry at Louis XIV, meaning perhaps less adversaries in France's future wars or adversaries who lack the intense drive of religious warfare.
  • Because the Edict of Fontainebleau is not proclaimed, the Brandenburg-Prussia edict, Edict of Potsdam is not issued. This means that there is no mass European migration to the nation, and if one would want to stretch it far enough, there could be no emergence of the Prussian nation which would help unify Germany further down in history.
  • A stronger, richer France with a much larger population (between 200,000 and 900,000 Protestants have been said to have left the country) would be able to fare much better in the War of the Spanish Succession. In fact, they may fare so much better that they actually continue to impose their original plan of making Philip V of Spain have rights to the French Crown. This means that upon Louis XIV's death you could possibly see a unified Franco-Spain, which would have tremendous influence in the west. France's additional power would also help in controlling the weakening Spanish Empire, meaning an overall more dangerous foe in the west for Protestantism.
  • On a less likely note, the continuation of religious tolerance may help to inspire the ideas of liberalism (separation of church and state, republics/democracies, etc.) earlier.
Does anyone see any flaws in this or have any additional after-effects?
 
These things happen to everybody from time to time.


On your points, though:
-This is reasonable, of course, and you've to remember the flip side of it too. Many Protestant nations around France, such as England and the United Provinces, would suffer from the missing Huguenot influx.
-I'm certain that ol' Frederick-William would've found some other way to elevate the status of Brandenburg-Prussia without the Edict of Potsdam. Yeah, it'd be a little economically weaker, but it'd still manage to grow.
-I'd be damned surprised if the rest of Europe would let France get into a union with Spain no matter what, 'cos otherwise a Franco-Spanish union would probably be commonly known as the "I'm-gonna-rape-your-country Empire"
-Eh, that was already going on in Europe.
 
Thanks for your input!
-This is reasonable, of course, and you've to remember the flip side of it too. Many Protestant nations around France, such as England and the United Provinces, would suffer from the missing Huguenot influx. The extent of their losses, I'm not sure of. It is hinted in my sources that France's economy was significantly weakened because of them leaving, but that does not necessarily mean that the other nations' economies would be 'significantly boosted'. They will be helped, yes, but it may not be an extreme gain.

-I'm certain that ol' Frederick-William would've found some other way to elevate the status of Brandenburg-Prussia without the Edict of Potsdam. Yeah, it'd be a little economically weaker, but it'd still manage to grow. Well a weaker Prussia means a weaker Germany, and I'm all for that. I don't know much of Germany's history though, so I'll have to see how it will affect the future of the Reich.

-I'd be damned surprised if the rest of Europe would let France get into a union with Spain no matter what, 'cos otherwise a Franco-Spanish union would probably be commonly known as the "I'm-gonna-rape-your-country Empire". In our timeline, they didn't allow it. Louis XIV was already trying that with his grandson, Philip V of Spain, and that was the whole point of the War of Spanish Succession. Historically, France and Spain won that war, not by much, but to keep the peace they agreed to keep the two nations separate. If they won by a much larger majority because they could mobilize a much larger army because of their much larger economy, perhaps France could force the other nations to accept the union.

-Eh, that was already going on in Europe. Fair enough, I wasn't aware.
 
Interesting topic.

Louis XIV has to have another character (maybe his unkown twin brother Philippe...?): less egocentric and less religious (see Marcel Pagnol's describtion of the king's character).

I don't think it will influence the War of Succession too much. France was at the height of its power in OTL. At maximum (!) 300,000 people left France according to recent scientific studies. The Franco-Spanish Union was a question of power, not of religion. It a power like that would form, (almost) the whole of Europe would fight - as in OTL.

The consequences would take effect on the long run:

- Several cities and areas are not founded, esp. in Hesse, Brandenburg and Prussia. As the Frenchmen in Prussia were separetely organized and thus strenghthened Brandenburg-Prussian state, this development would slow down (considerably?) and would probably emphasize on Pietist networks in early 18th century.

- Huguenots might gain access to the colonies (they were forbidden to live in French colonies). Maybe some colonies might grow stronger, such as Quebec.

- The French enlightenment would not find Protestants as pure victim of Royal power. Maybe even during the Revolution (if it takes place! Maybe Necker is butterflied away?), Protestants might not be supported as they were in OTL.

- French protestantism would have another face. And today, about 10% of the French population would be Protestant instead of less than 2%.

These might more realistic consequences than an Franco-Spanish Empire. The French lost not because they drove the Protestants from out of the country. And French economy still was very effective.
 
Glad to see more input on this.
Louis XIV has to have another character (maybe his unknown twin brother Philippe...?): less egocentric and less religious (see Marcel Pagnol's description of the king's character). As far as I know, the Edict of Fontainebleau was not Louis' own idea but was rather inspired by his wife and his minister, with the priest taking more of the responsibility. It might be easier to influence them rather than the resolute monarch himself.

I don't think it will influence the War of Succession too much. France was at the height of its power in OTL. At maximum (!) 300,000 people left France according to recent scientific studies. Certainly an additional 300,000 people would help France reach even higher standards of power in the War of Succession. Even if only 5% of those were drafted, you are still looking at 15,000 additional soldiers. The Franco-Spanish Union was a question of power, not of religion. It a power like that would form, (almost) the whole of Europe would fight - as in OTL. Aside from a Franco-Spanish Union, another possible goal of mine would be to give France, rather than the losing nations in the war, Spain's Italian and Lowland territories.

The consequences would take effect on the long run:

- Several cities and areas are not founded, esp. in Hesse, Brandenburg and Prussia. As the Frenchmen in Prussia were separetely organized and thus strenghthened Brandenburg-Prussian state, this development would slow down (considerably?) and would probably emphasize on Pietist networks in early 18th century. So a weaker east Holy Roman Empire?

- Huguenots might gain access to the colonies (they were forbidden to live in French colonies). Maybe some colonies might grow stronger, such as Quebec. Just because the Edict is not issued, doesn't mean that all of a sudden more religious tolerance is going to be appear - it just means that there will be less religious persecution. Though it would be interesting to have greater colonial power.

- The French enlightenment would not find Protestants as pure victim of Royal power. Maybe even during the Revolution (if it takes place! Maybe Necker is butterflied away?), Protestants might not be supported as they were in OTL. Sorry, but I have yet to thoroughly research the French Revolution.

- French protestantism would have another face. And today, about 10% of the French population would be Protestant instead of less than 2%. Perhaps.

These might more realistic consequences than an Franco-Spanish Empire. The French lost not because they drove the Protestants from out of the country. And French economy still was very effective. Let me pose what I said above in a question: Do you think it would be more likely to have France get the Italian and Lowland territories from Spain rather than a complete royal union?
 
Bump. Also, a clarification: If France had all of the previously mentioned bonuses and its enemies had all of the previous mentioned disadvantages, do you think that France could obtain the Spanish Netherlands and Spanish Italy following the War of the Spanish Succession, rather than Austria getting them? This means no combined royalty between France and Spain, but France still getting a suitable reward for its unquestionable victory (in ATL).
 
The Spanish Netherlands are tricky-- at that point they're no longer the strategic location of Europe, but the area's still important and the United Provinces would be mighty unhappy with the French right on their southern border.

Going into some serious Dutch politics, I can see the ultracalvinists being initally the least bothered faction within the Netherlands if a still-Huguenot-friendly France were to snatch the southern Netherlands from Spain. Zeeland's economy was strongest when Hollander shipping couldn't go directly to Flandersian (What's the term anyways?) ports and instead had go down the Schelde-- the more open a postwar France would be with the United Provinces regarding trade, the less likely Zeeland would be happy with the prospect of a French southern Netherlands. Along the same lines, the merchants of Amsterdam et al would be more favorable to a French southern Netherlands the more France would be likely to open up Flandersian (that weird word again!) ports to Hollander shipping. I doubt Orangists would be partial to the idea, and States such as Drenthe and Overijssel would likely be alert, but not necessary opposed, being as they were more engaged in Rhine traffic than anything else.

All in all, the idea would probably be enough for the Dutch Republic to paralyze itself with in-fighting while officially being opposed. This is going by pre-De Witt attitudes, mind you, as I'm still not so good at post-1672 Dutch history quite yet, so a few points could be off.


Italy's a much weaker area for me, but I was under the impression that French foreign policy's fetish with Italy disappeared by 1600. Am I wrong in that regard?
 
  • A stronger, richer France with a much larger population (between 200,000 and 900,000 Protestants have been said to have left the country) would be able to fare much better in the War of the Spanish Succession. In fact, they may fare so much better that they actually continue to impose their original plan of making Philip V of Spain have rights to the French Crown. This means that upon Louis XIV's death you could possibly see a unified Franco-Spain, which would have tremendous influence in the west. France's additional power would also help in controlling the weakening Spanish Empire, meaning an overall more dangerous foe in the west for Protestantism.
I dunno about this, we have to remember, if Austria, Britain, and the Netherlands had really wanted to, they could have imposed pretty much any terms they wanted on France, they just would have had to drag the war out. The reason they didn't is because the Dutch feared a reunified Habsburg Monarchy would not be good for Protestanstism in the Low Countries and Germany after Charles VI assumed the Austria/Holy Roman Throne, however if given the choice between an Austrian dominated Spain and a French one, I feel like the British would have told to Dutch to deal with an Austrian Dominated one.
 
I dunno about this, we have to remember, if Austria, Britain, and the Netherlands had really wanted to, they could have imposed pretty much any terms they wanted on France, they just would have had to drag the war out. The reason they didn't is because the Dutch feared a reunified Habsburg Monarchy would not be good for Protestanstism in the Low Countries and Germany after Charles VI assumed the Austria/Holy Roman Throne, however if given the choice between an Austrian dominated Spain and a French one, I feel like the British would have told to Dutch to deal with an Austrian Dominated one.

The reason the Allies did not press the war all the way was that the new Tory government in Britain secretly sought peace with France. Basically, Britain abandoned its allies when its own targets had been met.
 
As far as I know, the Edict of Fontainebleau was not Louis' own idea but was rather inspired by his wife and his minister, with the priest taking more of the responsibility. It might be easier to influence them rather than the resolute monarch himself.
Louis feared nothing more than being sentenced to hell. So he tried to forces his religion upon others. If you have OTL Louis XIV in power, sooner or later he will try to unify his country according to the principle "un roi, un foi, une loi". Remember, it was Louis XIV himself who had intervened during the peace negotiations of Rijswick (1697) in order to establish a good basis for Catholicism in the Palatinate. His wife was the daughter of the Palatinate's elector, Liselotte! Louis himself established the so called "Ryswyck Clause", turning the Palatinate into an area with about 30% Catholics. If you don't change Louis's character or let him die earlier, he will "unify" his country. These were his two obsessions: religion and centralization.

Certainly an additional 300,000 people would help France reach even higher standards of power in the War of Succession. Even if only 5% of those were drafted, you are still looking at 15,000 additional soldiers.
You have to reduce extremely: abt. 50% were female, leaves 150,000. Of these again about 50% were children, leaves 75,000. And of these, about 20-25% are too old for service, and at least another 25% were vital for economy, leaving about 37,500. And even French standards did not manage to reach all of them.
But let's say, your 15,000 soldiers are taken in. They've got to be paid and they've got to be given food, clothing, etc. In 1708, Louis sued for peace but was not willing to accept the Allied proposals: French state had essential problems with the war debt.
During these wars, people mostly did not die on battlefield but of disease or they simply left the army. These soldiers will make no difference, they might even turn out bad. An earlier French revolution is even thinkable: The Estates demand their old rights and establish an order where the king cannot act without their consent, like in United Kingdom.

Aside from a Franco-Spanish Union, another possible goal of mine would be to give France, rather than the losing nations in the war, Spain's Italian and Lowland territories.
Yes, yes - the "natural frontiers"... but do not underestimate power
(shush, Yoda!). No
European power will allow a significant power boost for France. The wealthy Dutch Republic would never ever wanted a direct French neighbourhood. The British did not want a French hegemony and they would certainly not want France at Oostende or in Bruges (THAT was the reason, they declared war several times in history...). Austria feared the loss of most welcomed resources. France could only get the Lowlands or/and Spanish Italy if they were in complete control of these areas and would be able to even go further. A combined French action from Strasbourg via Munich to Vienna and from Milano via Innsbruck to Vienna might have this effect. But the point is: All powers were exhausted, no power could win completely.

So a weaker east Holy Roman Empire?
I'd say the HRE would be slightly stronger as Prussia needed time to establish an effective way of a power state. Prussia would be weaker and might even not become the leading Protestant power in the HRE until about 1730 (in OTL, they did take that place after the conversion of Saxon electors in the 1690s, so the Saxons could get the crown of Poland).

Just because the Edict is not issued, doesn't mean that all of a sudden more religious tolerance is going to be appear - it just means that there will be less religious persecution. Though it would be interesting to have greater colonial power.
If you want to have stronger economy, even Louis or his successors would need to grant more religious freedom...

Sorry, but I have yet to thoroughly research the French Revolution. Do that, it is very intriguing.

Perhaps. Probably.

Let me pose what I said above in a question: Do you think it would be more likely to have France get the Italian and Lowland territories from Spain rather than a complete royal union?
More likely, yes. But Louis would never ever want to give up any grip to Spain. And that would have been the main conditio sine quod non, the Alliance would accept a peace like that.
 
France (with Spanish Netherlands and Southern Italy) would of course attempt to obtain Spain through some later meddling, but that is a war for the future. I think I'll examine history more closely and develop this idea, especially since I was unaware of the critically important Nine Years' War. I quote,
...the King’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes [Edict of Fontainebleau did this] in 1685 began a deterioration of French military and political dominance in Europe.
This gives me the basis to start working on a more powerful France even earlier than before, as long as I can find the grounds for justification. Thank you everyone, especially Leyermark, for your assistance on this! When I have more ideas or maybe a rough timeline established I'll come back to this topic.
 
Top