Poor French Birth Rate avoided?

Of course, with all of this, while France is much stronger, the empire it forms will be heavily affected by internal considerations. A major reason for the formation of the French Empire originally was that France wanted to regain lost prestige after the Franco-Prussian war and also to help rebuild its strength, given that in Europe its strength was relatively shrinking.

You're touching the core of the problem here. Any population increase post-1870 would be encouraged to stay on the continent to counter-balance growing Prussian demographic pressure. The French were scared shitless of that, for a reason, as they were being dwarfed by England and Prussia, also with now a stronger Italy in the South. Even if we see it now as one of the apex of France, at the time they were obsessed with decline, convinced the country was one inch away from obscurity.

You'd need a bigger population beforehand. But then that impacts the Franco-prussian war. No Franco-prussian war, no big colonisation and no scramble for Africa...
 
You'd need a bigger population beforehand. But then that impacts the Franco-prussian war. No Franco-prussian war, no big colonisation and no scramble for Africa...
Why would the second colonization wave not happen without the Franco-Prussian war? The French started already to expand in Senegal for example, of course withou Berlin congress the colonization could be slower but at the same time a France with 2/3 times the population is forced to do so if they want that the emigrants "stay" in the country. Anyway can the French agricultural production sustain the population? And to correlate to OTL how much food the German had to import before WW1?
 
Why would the second colonization wave not happen without the Franco-Prussian war?

It would not have happened as much because of a couple factors.

The rise of the republic led a lot of royalists/imperialists to get out of the country to seek fortune elsewhere, including in the army. All of a sudden you had an influx of young, ambitious men.

Second and most importantly, it was a matter of pride. France couldn't dominate in a European landwar anymore but France wanted to show it was still a world power. France also wanted more potential recruits in a potential war with Prussia. Hence, they went to Africa, and we saw the result in WWI when the troupes coloniales were called forth to defend the country, much to the dismay of Prussian troups.

Indochina is a bit of another case since the goal was access to China's market.
 
Logically, and this is just conjecture on my part, wouldn't that be what we expect as part of the early stages of the French agricultural reform? Many of the large feudal holdings of the church and the emigres have been broken up, and so a good deal of landless peasants will now have land, and thus will be able to have a family. It would only be with filled land that is all already owned by the peasants themselves that the birth rate would then drop as it would make economic sense to limit birth rates. I'm still not entirely sure about the land hypothesis since other countries might have had it, but I'd have to look at the various inheritance practices in Europe to say with full certainty.

No, not really. The thing is, the land seized during the revolution can be classified in three categories : the land "seized" by the peasantry from the nobility in 1789 mostly during the Great Fear(it wasn't really seized, it is more the end of the feudality, and the destruction of the terriers, the land seized by the state and sold through the Assignats (which was mostly sold to the Bourgeoisie IIRC), and the land that the communes got back from the nobility in 1789 (which became communal land). Also, Masculine Primogeniture, while it was the rule for the nobility wasn't really for the Tiers Etat and the inheritance laws and traditions varied from place to place.


The best comparison tools are looking at the French territories owned during the wars that they lost afterwards, such as the Left Bank of the Rhine, and maybe some of the Italian territories, which presumably saw men conscripted into the army at the same rate but were under the control of different states afterwards. Unfortunately the only one that is easy to look at is Belgium. On populstats their growth rate does seem to have been pretty limited, from only circa 4m to 4.3m from 1800 to 1849, so that might be an effect of heavy casualties suppressing fertility - much more so than the French case, their growth was slower.

IIRC, the Conscription wasn't widely applied in non French speaking territory until late in the wars, given that the powers that be suspected that the population of the West Bank of the Rhine and Italy wouldn't be that happy to be conscripted. So losses would probably be lower anyway.

On the other and it doesn't explain later on, when fertility rates are actually lower - the French population was expanding nicely in the years immediately after the Napoleonic Wars, certainly not an explosive expansion but at a decent rate.

6.6% between 1821 to 1831 according to Populstat, compared to 12.2% for Germany and 15.3% for Great Britain. It wasn't a decent population growth for the era.

In addition on wikipedia's totals listing Napoleonic casualties, one of the "least estimates" is ~900,000 for the French and it has British casualties at 300,000. That would give a similar death ratio between the two given the French population being three times as large just in 1792 regions, but on the other hand that is also the least French estimate - others go as high as 1.7-1.8 million. The only other nation taking as many casualties as the French in a ratio is Spain, but it is probably more spread across males and females given the nature of war there to an extent - and their growth is only so-so anyway, from 11.5 million in 1810 to 14.2 million in 1849.

I think the 900000 casualities for the French Empire is really low. The losses for the Russian Campaign alone are between 200.000 and 300.000 men.

Given the emigration rate I'd be inclined to agree. In addition, looking at the province level population growths, the South seems to have growth quite quickly - and that is the region so heavily lacking in industrial capabilities and already handicapped by high emigration.

Papists and mafiosi breed like rabbits ? :D

Looking around (linking to show where I found the chart) I found a chart and a paper paper which had mentioned at one point French fertility falling from the 18th century, during its middle period.

Actually the graph shows that the French crude birth rate was already dropping since 1775 at least (which strengthen the theory that France only had an earlier demographic shift than the other european countries). There is a harder drop during the early revolutionnary period (well, it was one of the largest conscription event in France ever) and one 20 to 30 years after the end of the Napoleonic wars, so more or less when the "Génération Creuse" of the Napoleonic wars would start to have children.
 
No, not really. The thing is, the land seized during the revolution can be classified in three categories : the land "seized" by the peasantry from the nobility in 1789 mostly during the Great Fear(it wasn't really seized, it is more the end of the feudality, and the destruction of the terriers, the land seized by the state and sold through the Assignats (which was mostly sold to the Bourgeoisie IIRC), and the land that the communes got back from the nobility in 1789 (which became communal land). Also, Masculine Primogeniture, while it was the rule for the nobility wasn't really for the Tiers Etat and the inheritance laws and traditions varied from place to place.

Still, wouldn't there have been enough of new land to be encourage peasants to start new family? At least some of it had to have ended up among the peasantry, or else surely the Revolution would not have been as popular with them as otherwise?

IIRC, the Conscription wasn't widely applied in non French speaking territory until late in the wars, given that the powers that be suspected that the population of the West Bank of the Rhine and Italy wouldn't be that happy to be conscripted. So losses would probably be lower anyway.

I hadn't known that, that makes the lack of firm data regarding the territories even more depressing.

6.6% between 1821 to 1831 according to Populstat, compared to 12.2% for Germany and 15.3% for Great Britain. It wasn't a decent population growth for the era.

I'm more referring it in contrast to later population growth. Certainly it is mediocre but it is positive and moving in a decent direction, much higher than their nearby neighbor of Belgium at least.

I think the 900000 casualities for the French Empire is really low. The losses for the Russian Campaign alone are between 200.000 and 300.000 men.

They seemed low as well, the higher figures are (for my side of the conversation at least) unfortunately more probable.

Actually the graph shows that the French crude birth rate was already dropping since 1775 at least (which strengthen the theory that France only had an earlier demographic shift than the other european countries). There is a harder drop during the early revolutionnary period (well, it was one of the largest conscription event in France ever) and one 20 to 30 years after the end of the Napoleonic wars, so more or less when the "Génération Creuse" of the Napoleonic wars would start to have children.

It does look more similar to that, I had been basing my previous recollection of revolutionary fertility decline starting off a dimly remembered chart from several years ago. The drop off around 1840 also seems to correlate well to that, since the marriage age in Europe was (relatively) old - 1881 census figures indicating that 60% of women were single at 25, and 32% at 30, so that would fit casualties sustained at the end of the war.

The rise of the republic led a lot of royalists/imperialists to get out of the country to seek fortune elsewhere, including in the army. All of a sudden you had an influx of young, ambitious men.

France will have a lot more poor though, who will be going somewhere. Some will go overseas, but with a population much larger (and with more young of appropriate age for the army) the army is going to be much larger. I think that it will at least partly compensate. More people, and with Europe probably still mostly at peace even if tensions are high, and probably not the same degree of constant tensions with Germany without the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, glory seeking officers will go where the action is - overseas.

In this regards the relative decentralization of French colonial acquisition helps, since most of the acquiring was done by said units on the ground and not official French government policy, so even if the Government is otherwise disinterested low level units seeking glory, fame, and diversion will still be carving out their little empires.

Hence, they went to Africa, and we saw the result in WWI when the troupes coloniales were called forth to defend the country, much to the dismay of Prussian troups.

I recall reading - and unfortunately I don't know where, maybe it was the Climax of French Imperialism but it seems unlikely - that the French army command actually made rather surprisingly little usage of colonial manpower in their planning before the Great War.

You're touching the core of the problem here. Any population increase post-1870 would be encouraged to stay on the continent to counter-balance growing Prussian demographic pressure.

I think that would be problematic for them to manage. I doubt that the British or the Germans were happy about all the people fleeing to America, but they went anyway. Large numbers of poor people will do what they have to attempt to get a better life, and that will involve them going overseas.

Anyway can the French agricultural production sustain the population?

Some seem to take a rather positive view of French agriculture, but others seem to have a rather negative forecast over French agriculture - compared to English agriculture at least. Although even for the gloomy one it notes that French output per acre wasn't terribly less(pg. 39), so France might be able to sustain more people, just a lot more of them will have to be peasants than in England. France certainly has more land available. Also, France will probably get North Africa soon enough, which is a nice agricultural breadbasket. Given these factors it doesn't seem impossible that French can sustain its population growth if it occurs.
 
In this regards the relative decentralization of French colonial acquisition helps, since most of the acquiring was done by said units on the ground and not official French government policy, so even if the Government is otherwise disinterested low level units seeking glory, fame, and diversion will still be carving out their little empires.

That's partially true. Yes, the acquisition was made by crazy soldiers (Garnier) seeking glory but keeping the territory... Now that's something else as credits had to be voted in the chambers. Also, if the central authority is not pushing, you might just leave the territory alone by lack of troups (I'm specifically thinking about the first campaign of Tonkin where the peace treaty was ridiculously bad for a country that just kicked the Chinese around for a few months and had effective control of the delta)

Then, about carving little Empires, I suggest you read about Counani and the Kingdom of the Sedang, amazingly fun stories!

I think that would be problematic for them to manage. I doubt that the British or the Germans were happy about all the people fleeing to America, but they went anyway. Large numbers of poor people will do what they have to attempt to get a better life, and that will involve them going overseas.

I see your point but don't agree with it. If there was a pressure with lots of people leaving, France would offer them more opportunities in Algeria, increasing the proletarian population. If that's not enough, they could maybe formally annex Tunisia? Or send more people in Nouvelle-Calédonie (although that might be a harder sell).

There was a very strong will to repopulate France and to keep as many bodies as possible. If there is internal pressure for more land, France would just send the people to one of its numerous colonies with land to farm and possibly subsidies.

You could also follow Lyautey's recommendations (which were nothing new) and allow soldiers to stay and farm a plot of land where they fought à la roman
 
That's partially true. Yes, the acquisition was made by crazy soldiers (Garnier) seeking glory but keeping the territory... Now that's something else as credits had to be voted in the chambers. Also, if the central authority is not pushing, you might just leave the territory alone by lack of troups (I'm specifically thinking about the first campaign of Tonkin where the peace treaty was ridiculously bad for a country that just kicked the Chinese around for a few months and had effective control of the delta)

I think that Indochina would receive a boost by the much larger French population and more developed economy, which is going to want larger markets and raw material basins - more like British colonization, an increased focus on the economic aspect rather than the prestige aspect. It was after all a much richer and more useful region than Africa(although in the long term I'd say French involvement in Africa is much more important than mucking around in Indochina, but they don't know that in the 19th century) - more populous, more developed, richer, ect. ect.

The other thing is that a stronger France with opposition to Britain might actually increase colonial vigor, since the French only got really worked up over the colonies during colonial crisis periods directed against European powers - Siam, Fashoda, Morocco. With stronger rivalries with the British and presumably more crisises resulting from that they might be able to argue convincingly that every scrap of worthless jungle/desert/mountains/swamp represents the struggle of the French against perfidious Albion, and channel public emotion which mostly didn't care about the colonies against European powers to enable them to take different regions. Of course that does raise the threat of war with the British, but hopefully cooler heads would prevail.

Sort of funny that I started out with the chain of doubt about the French colonial Empire but now I am writing a bunch of different reasons for why I think it would still happen on a large scale or even more successfully, but eh.

Then, about carving little Empires, I suggest you read about Counani and the Kingdom of the Sedang, amazingly fun stories!

Also those two micro-nations are hilarious, thanks for sharing them.

I see your point but don't agree with it. If there was a pressure with lots of people leaving, France would offer them more opportunities in Algeria, increasing the proletarian population. If that's not enough, they could maybe formally annex Tunisia? Or send more people in Nouvelle-Calédonie (although that might be a harder sell).

There was a very strong will to repopulate France and to keep as many bodies as possible. If there is internal pressure for more land, France would just send the people to one of its numerous colonies with land to farm and possibly subsidies.

You could also follow Lyautey's recommendations (which were nothing new) and allow soldiers to stay and farm a plot of land where they fought à la roman

Oh concerning the Americans I wasn't suggesting that the French would want to send settlers out there, they'd obviously prefer it if they kept it in their own country - at least I'd presume. I don't know what the British/Germany/Italian, ect. ect. response to all their people fleeing to America but I'm guessing they didn't like it, and would have preferred settlers in their own colonies or staying at home.

However, if I recall during the pre-1763 era the French discouraged colonial settlers because they thought that it would lead to depopulation in France. Or at least that is what wikipedia said, I don't have any good sources otherwise. The same might play out here; the French authorities might be concerned about the rage number of people leaving Metropolitan France and therefor try to stop them, instead of channeling them into their own colonies - in which case too many of them will be "wasted" in the US. On the other hand North Africa is much closer to France, which would at least make the burden of moving there a lot easier; going on a lengthy steamer voyage to a new country across the atlantic seems like it would be less preferred by many French than going on a small hop across the Mediterranean to a land that is officially part of France and at the least is a colony. Also the French Pied Noirs seemed to have gone into Algeria in decently sized numbers, although not all of them were French.
 
The other thing is that a stronger France with opposition to Britain might actually increase colonial vigor, since the French only got really worked up over the colonies during colonial crisis periods directed against European powers - Siam, Fashoda, Morocco. With stronger rivalries with the British and presumably more crisises resulting from that they might be able to argue convincingly that every scrap of worthless jungle/desert/mountains/swamp represents the struggle of the French against perfidious Albion, and channel public emotion which mostly didn't care about the colonies against European powers to enable them to take different regions. Of course that does raise the threat of war with the British, but hopefully cooler heads would prevail.

Yes, but that has many more chances to happen if there is no war against Prussia (which might make sense if France's population is bigger). Otherwise, especially with the Alsace annexation, the enemy would be Prussia, just because the grievance are so much higher.
Not to say there can't be opposition against Perfide Albion otherwise, it did happen OTL and was indeed a big drive but not as much.

Although, I still believe that the colonial effort was put on overdrive after the War of 1870. There would have been something anyway (Indochine started before then) but I don't think it would have been as big. I remember reading that Bismarck actually pushed France into Africa so they would think less about attacking Prussia in revenge.

However, if I recall during the pre-1763 era the French discouraged colonial settlers because they thought that it would lead to depopulation in France. Or at least that is what wikipedia said, I don't have any good sources otherwise. The same might play out here; the French authorities might be concerned about the rage number of people leaving Metropolitan France and therefor try to stop them, instead of channeling them into their own colonies - in which case too many of them will be "wasted" in the US. On the other hand.

You'd be right, at least the Huguenots were banned from going to Nouvelle-France (fuck you Richelieu on this one, seriously) and the policy was to stay a land Empire. Also because the colonies were a bit far away (India and North America).

For the countries you mention, well the UK does have special links with the US and Canada and the climate is probably more hospitable than India.
For Germany and Italy, I shall however point that none of them had colonies until, at least, the Berlin conference of 1884. They weren't even proper countries into quite late in the century, keeping them from doing macro policies about limiting the hemorragy
 
Top