Situation of India in case France wins the Seven Years' War

For some reason people did not like to leave France. I have tried toget a concise answer but could not find one. Any suggestions?
It's far away and France is pretty great?

Joke aside, the BEIC was indeed a way more stable and dynamic institution than the Compagnie des Indes which suffered from heavy state intervention.

Also, they fired Dupleix when things were going great...
 

longsword14

Banned
It's far away and France is pretty great?

Joke aside, the BEIC was indeed a way more stable and dynamic institution than the Compagnie des Indes which suffered from heavy state intervention.

Also, they fired Dupleix when things were going great...
Were the conditions in Britain so bad that people continuously left for the colonies? I am not well read on the exact socio-economic history of many nations.
 
Were the conditions in Britain so bad that people continuously left for the colonies? I am not well read on the exact socio-economic history of many nations.
No, it's really more that the French state did not encourage colonisation, or at least not in a stable, long term strategic way. It was very mercantilist, in the best of times.

For the land bit, well, having lived in both country, climate is a bit better in most of France by virtue of being south
 

longsword14

Banned
No, it's really more that the French state did not encourage colonisation, or at least not in a stable, long term strategic way. It was very mercantilist, in the best of times.

For the land bit, well, having lived in both country, climate is a bit better in most of France by virtue of being south
Did anybody actually had a settlement plan in those days? I though it was quite informal with private effort being the driving force combined with government having indirect influence.
I am wondering about the phase during which the base was laid, because the most difficult part is the beginning. If nothing major happens in the first phase there are no reasons to actively encourage anything.
 
Were the conditions in Britain so bad that people continuously left for the colonies? I am not well read on the exact socio-economic history of many nations.
No but Britain went through a 30 year civil war, and people were unsure of it's religious and political future so they fled to the colonies. The same happened in France, actually, but it didn't happen as fast as Cromwell and the English Civil War.

That's the reason the English colonies got such a huge boost in population and then it continued to grow at a good rate once trade had been established
 
Did anybody actually had a settlement plan in those days? I though it was quite informal with private effort being the driving force combined with government having indirect influence.
I am wondering about the phase during which the base was laid, because the most difficult part is the beginning. If nothing major happens in the first phase there are no reasons to actively encourage anything.

Many colonies were expensive, money-losing ventures for investors. They were tough to get off the ground as the initial settlers struggled to survive. In the case of New France, it was barely scraping by until it came under royal control in the 1660s. The government then made a limited effort to recruit settlers (Colbert disapproved of it, thinking it would "depopulate" France), which was nevertheless enough to cause the population to quadruple between 1665 (3,215) and 1685 (12,373). It didn't recruit much beyond that point though, and thereafter, New France mostly only grew through natural increase.

As New France's main export product was furs, which did not require much human settlement, its proprietors (whether private or government) didn't seem to see the value in sending large numbers of people over.
 
Last edited:
Many colonies were expensive, money-losing ventures for investors. They were tough to get off the ground as the initial settlers struggled to survive. In the case of New France, it was barely scraping by until it came under royal control in the 1660s. The government then made a limited effort to recruit settlers (Colbert disapproved of it, thinking it would "depopulate" France), which was nevertheless enough to cause the population to quadruple between 1665 (3,215) and 1685 (12,373). It didn't recruit much beyond that point though, and thereafter, New France mostly only grew through natural increase.

As New France's main export product was furs, which did not require much human settlement, its proprietors (whether private or government) didn't seem to see the value in sending large numbers of people over.
But that's the thing: those numbers are ridiculously small!
You could have sent that every month for ten years until you'd start to see a real impact in France!
 
But that's the thing: those numbers are ridiculously small!
You could have sent that every month for ten years until you'd start to see a real impact in France!

Yes. Colbert (and others in the government) didn't seem to understand this. They also didn't realize how fast the population could grow in North America, where conditions were healthier and families were larger. Just sending a few thousand more people in the 1680s would have caused the population to be much larger later on.
 
Top