The Infertile Hexagon: Population growth in the 18th and 19th century

As a lot of you are probably aware, France has historically had a rather large population in comparison to the rest of Europe. This didn't last though. The French went from a comfortable lead on what would become the German Empire, to being left in the dust. What I want to know, is why?

To have a proper place to start, I decided that we needed some graphs to better visualize exactly what happened. The first two graphs show the total population of 12 European countries in the period. Germany is the territory that would later become the German Empire, Ireland is the whole island, the rest are present day territory. It might not be a 100% accurate, given that some territory changed hand in the period, but the overall trends shouldn't really be affected by it.

The third graph shows just the population growth, to make it easier to compare between countries. We see England flying off the chart, Denmark being both really average and very stable, and the Irish rocketing off only to crash and burn. All the while, France just plods away, never really managing to ever take off.

In the final graph I've plotted in population density, in case that would give us a clue. While this might perhaps explain Belgium, which starts off really high on the graph, it doesn't really seem to explain France.

So my question are these:

  1. How would you explain the differences in population growth in these countries during the period?
  2. Can we figure out what went wrong in France by comparing it to its European counterparts?
  3. What are the historical causes of the differences we see here?
  4. Do you see any way to mix this graph up a little, by having for example France grow quickly while England stagnates? Can this happen incidentally, a side effect of another change, or would it have to be a conscious decision by policy makers to increase population growth? The French did this after WW2, but would it be realistic in this period?
attachment.php
 
Can we figure out what went wrong in France by comparing it to its European counterparts?
Earlier managment of birth, with earlier contraception.
Stabilization of family, and reduction of "all-powerful Pater Familias" before 1800 and Code Napoléon.
Earlier demographic transition : France was wealthy and starvation rare. You don't make as many children when they live longer in more important numbers.

Nothing went wrong : France demographic was just more precoce.

You have also dechristianisation, "Growth and reproduce" less enjoyable than "fuck without too many risk".
 
Germany always had a larger potential population than France, even in the days of Habsburg rule of the HRE and the Valois dynasty. There was some fear that this would lead to European de-stablization that played a role in the actions of foreign powers in the German states (though this was less crucial than the traditional German orientation to particularism in practice, and if anything Russia's creation of Prussia means Germany exists thanks to Russian good-will). Add in the demographic boom of industrialization and this creates an example of a commonly-held belief being validated.

Likewise, France has certain limitations that others of its rivals did not. First and foremost demographically France *was* the largest state of pre-modern Europe, so it had less room to grow than Germany did. Second, France was a society which had a long tradition of militarism, which in a sense actually tends to be an ultimate demographic trap, as a garrison state tends to have an uneven demographic growth. Third, France for a very long time was actually the richest, most modern state in Europe, so it did not need huge populations, which tend if anything to usually reflect poorer, not richer, societies.
 
In the 18th and 19th centuries? Beyond the whole Weirdness after the revolution, I wasn't aware there was any significant dent made in France's Christianity during that period.

Yes, you have. In fact, the pre-Revolutionnary Christianisation helped really this one.

It was first widepsread among elites ("esprit libre", "libertin") at an huge scale, and began to widespread in population (as said, use of contraceptives), and the secular power of church was more and more debated among the peasants.

The French Revolution didn't appeared ex nihilo.
 
Earlier managment of birth, with earlier contraception.
Stabilization of family, and reduction of "all-powerful Pater Familias" before 1800 and Code Napoléon.
Earlier demographic transition : France was wealthy and starvation rare. You don't make as many children when they live longer in more important numbers.
So basically, France was far more socially developed during this period, which meant that the population boom others experienced never really materialized?

Nothing went wrong : France demographic was just more precoce.
Well alright, perhaps not exactly wrong (that would be Ireland), but the low population growth did mean that France no longer enjoyed the advantage of being a largest country in Western Europe.

Germany always had a larger potential population than France, even in the days of Habsburg rule of the HRE and the Valois dynasty... Add in the demographic boom of industrialization and this creates an example of a commonly-held belief being validated.
Why do you think Germany had a larger potential population? Their territory is about the same size, and the terrain is pretty similar as well. Talking the 1871 Empire here, not any potential Grossdeutschland.

Likewise, France has certain limitations that others of its rivals did not. First and foremost demographically France *was* the largest state of pre-modern Europe, so it had less room to grow than Germany did.
It doesn't have to match Germany though, just do better than it did. England, Italy and the Netherlands start off at similar densities, but that didn't stop them from growing significantly more than France. Even taking the lowest growth among these, which is the growth of the Italians, France would be a third larger at the end of this period.

Second, France was a society which had a long tradition of militarism, which in a sense actually tends to be an ultimate demographic trap, as a garrison state tends to have an uneven demographic growth.
Is this not also true for Denmark for example? I can't find a source right now, but I recall finding a site that showed the Danish army being seriously disproportionate to the population during this period. Much more so than the French, because the Danish kings had ambitions far beyond the capabilities of such a small country. Doesn't seem to have prevented Denmark from being right in the middle of the pack when it comes to growth.

Though maybe the Danish population would have grown quicker without that large military, and it's just other factors that made sure it still grew much quicker than France did.

This also reminds me; we don't have to focus on France in particular, the population growth of other countries is interesting as well. The entirety of the British Isles show really nice growth until the Irish Potato Famine, and I'm wondering if there are common factors in play here that fuel this population explosion.
 
So basically, France was far more socially developed during this period, which meant that the population boom others experienced never really materialized?
It materialized, but in smaller scale. And when other countries knew or still know a relative low, France have more or less the same birth/death ratio.


Well alright, perhaps not exactly wrong (that would be Ireland), but the low population growth did mean that France no longer enjoyed the advantage of being a largest country in Western Europe.
But it enjoyed a stable birth/death ration. So, less issues with overpopulation than England or Germany, or possibility to fund more infrastructures.

Why do you think Germany had a larger potential population? Their territory is about the same size, and the terrain is pretty similar as well. Talking the 1871 Empire here, not any potential Grossdeutschland.
More possibilities to have a rise : more industrial aeras, possibility to devellop agriculture thanks to both fertile lands AND agro-industrial features.
 
In Britains particular case the population had grown to 6.5 million in 1350 and 1650 but crashed both times, obstensibly to to plague but underlying this was the inability to feed a larger population, leading to suceptibility to plague driven crash. The British Agricultural Revolution in the 1700s meant that when Britain reached 6.5 million again in about 1750 it could sustain this and more, and burst through the 6.5 million limit.
 
More possibilities to have a rise : more industrial aeras, possibility to devellop agriculture thanks to both fertile lands AND agro-industrial features.
In Britains particular case the population had grown to 6.5 million in 1350 and 1650 but crashed both times, obstensibly to to plague but underlying this was the inability to feed a larger population, leading to suceptibility to plague driven crash. The British Agricultural Revolution in the 1700s meant that when Britain reached 6.5 million again in about 1750 it could sustain this and more, and burst through the 6.5 million limit.
So one of the issues France faced was the fact that it did not have the resources needed to fuel an industrial revolution in the same way as for example Britain, further hindered by its lack of institutions (Such as the Bank of England) that would help farmers grow more productive? The lack of perceived need to even implement reform, as a consequence of being top dog for so long, further exacerbated this I presume.

A conquest of (parts of) Belgium, with its useful industrial resources and densely populated land might help then? According to wikipedia, Belgian farmers had part in improving the agricultural productivity of the British Isles, and the industrial resources would help make the new techniques cheaper for the farmer to implement. This doesn't tackle the institutional issues that were preventing the large population growth, but perhaps it might help a little.

This thread (in which Nugax gets pissed) may be relevant...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=225418

Bruce
Thanks.

From what I can tell, the conclusion seems to be that France just had it too good, was too stable, to put pressure on the peasants to have loads of kids. Basically the demographic transition that LSCatilina pointed it in the first reply.

Is there any way to change that? To cause instability in France that would put pressure on the peasants to have more kids, on the French state to reform itself, and to generally prepare France for a population boom similar to other states? Not necessarily to the degree seen in England, but even something like the boom in the Netherlands would be a serious boost to the French population. We can push back the POD if need be.

In regards to the more general question about population growth, what do people see as the main factors in growth? Have I missed any here?:

  • New agricultural techniques and crops that can exploit previously poor land, or increase the yield of productive land.
  • Institutions such as the Bank of England that provide support in the adoption of these new techniques.*
  • Natural resources that allow cheap production of the tools needed to put these techniques into play.
  • Uncertainty among the peasantry that compel them to produce more kids, who are then siphoned off to the growing cities.
*Which might require a state that is a bit more focused on the "ignoble" traders, instead of just the old nobility.
 
Some say that part of the problem is du to late introduction of the potato in France. But I am not sure about this. In any case if France grow was the same as England I beleive making colonies would have been vital to avoid overpopulation.
 
Some say that part of the problem is du to late introduction of the potato in France. But I am not sure about this. In any case if France grow was the same as England I beleive making colonies would have been vital to avoid overpopulation.

Or they could move to the US. (Which is a TL of interest in itself: what does the US look like if French immigration is almost as large as OTL German immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries?)

Bruce
 
Or they could move to the US. (Which is a TL of interest in itself: what does the US look like if French immigration is almost as large as OTL German immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries?)

Bruce

That could indeed be very interesting, especially if combined with Canada joining the revolution; potentially there would be large Francophone and largely Catholic bloc in much of what is now Canada and the Northern Tier.

Random thought: maybe this could have interesting effects on American cuisine; more Catholic influence prevents nationwide Prohibition and Franco-American vintners keep the Hudson Valley the country's premier wine-growing region?
 
One thing to consider is that modern France is 1,5 times the size of Germany with half the population density and some great farmland. IOW, if 19th C French society can somehow be adapted to a similar population growth as other countries, we could, in theory, have a France with up to 120 million Frenchmen...(with the same population density as Germany, so about a fifth lower than Britain's). I'm not sure how to get there, but it would definitely make a great 19th-20th century TL:cool:
 
One thing to consider is that modern France is 1,5 times the size of Germany with half the population density and some great farmland. IOW, if 19th C French society can somehow be adapted to a similar population growth as other countries, we could, in theory, have a France with up to 120 million Frenchmen...(with the same population density as Germany, so about a fifth lower than Britain's). I'm not sure how to get there, but it would definitely make a great 19th-20th century TL:cool:
This is partly why I'm asking. Changing the population growth in this period can radically change the face of Europe, and therefore the world. Imagine if France just continued holding its position as the most populous state in Europe, like it had been for hundreds of years. A France that is as dangerous in the 19th century as it has always been in should change things quite a bit.

Not that France need be the only focus of discussion, it's just an excellent test case since its growth was so limited.

The discussion might also be relevant for timelines that start much earlier, where the political and social conditions might mean a very different demographic situation in a region. Assuming OTL population figures for a France that was a mirror to OTL Germany would probably be a mistake for example.
 
lower the marrying age rate. In Britain due to the industrial revoulution more people get some sort of work earlier so they started marrying earlier. Did you know in Victorian Britain the avg age of married couples was 23 for women. Yeah that is why thier is such a huge baby boom, because people married younger. In france that didn't happen. So somehow get it so that in France people marry younger like in Britaina nd you have a baby boom.
 
Or they could move to the US. (Which is a TL of interest in itself: what does the US look like if French immigration is almost as large as OTL German immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries?)

Bruce
But such a pod would need to come relatively early like 16th century imo.
 
I read the Discovery of France quite a while ago, and I think one of the interesting hypothesis for the demographic decline was the state of Forestry in france. One of the results of the French revolution was a seizing of estates of the landed, which were often forested hunting grounds. The peasantry would possess these lands and then clear the land for farming, this was great for a little while but after the trees were removed alot of the new farm land was threatened by erosion. The author went into how alot of the rivers were affected by this as they filled with silt over time.
 
Or they could move to the US. (Which is a TL of interest in itself: what does the US look like if French immigration is almost as large as OTL German immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries?)

Bruce

Well, they sort of did, but it was the Huguenots. A large wave in the 1600s and early 1700s (okay, large for its time, not millions but surely thousands) and a smaller wave in the early 1800s, of which some of my ancestors were a part.

However, IIRC France is a majority Catholic country. So, maybe a Protestant king would cause more to flee. Say, Gaston, younger brother of Louis XII, is killed int he Battle of Castelnaudary in 1632. Anne of Austria had 4 miscarriages OTL, the stress causes butterflies and she dies after her 4th, before producing Louis XIV. Seeing this is during the 30 Years War, this would cause some major complications.

You could see quite a few Catholics and Protestants fleeing France. While OTL not many people moved to places like Louisiana, they might OTL.

(That in itself is an interesting POD that I brought up, but it has probably already been discussed, so I'll bring it back to the topic - more colonists means more of a chance for the potato and other crops to be introduced back to France.)
 
Top