What if France directly competed with Spain in the Americas by 1500?

Lusitania

Donor
Of course, in spite of all this, the Canadien population grew quickly, from 3000 in 1660 to around 70 000 a century later. That was overwhelmingly due to natural increase. So if that founding population arrives sooner (like if the 1541 settlement survives) it can potentially grow pretty large over time.
Yes and if the French has continued even moderate emigration of few thousand a year the population could of been in the hundreds of thousands and settlements possible extend to what today is Ontario by 1750.

Now if French had encouraged or practiced sending of settlers like the British New France alone could of reached into Ohio valley. Making things much more interesting. For a 1 million New France population would of made English and French relationship and coexistence much more complicated.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Which brings us to the main purpose of this thread. What would France of needed to do to compete directly with Spain from the start of the American exploration and colonization.
 
Of course, in spite of all this, the Canadien population grew quickly, from 3000 in 1660 to around 70 000 a century later. That was overwhelmingly due to natural increase. So if that founding population arrives sooner (like if the 1541 settlement survives) it can potentially grow pretty large over time.
100% true. A few thousand more settlers could have led to millions more French Canadians in the present.
 
I think one problem is that France is very European-centered and the big "French Master Plan" was always to conquer most of Europe until they create a new Roman Empire. Europe is what matters.

Compare to Portugal ("Europe? Who cares? No hot dark-skinned women and gold in Europe!"), England (live in an island), Spain (half there and half here), the Dutch (naval traders), the Austrians (no colonies lol), etc.

Its an opportunity costs thing. They need these colonies to be profitable, to make it worth to the European-oriented France. France is not Portugal, they cannot colonize almost for the sake of it. France is the big boy of Europe.
 
there was nothing of value (furs aside, and that's not a renewable resource
someone needs to tell the mink and beaver they can't reproduce!:p

The region of Canada explored by 1700 had gold/silver, plus a host of other minerals. It simply wasn't discovered as yet. Part of that is due to the low white population concentrating on trading for furs.
 
Which brings us to the main purpose of this thread. What would France of needed to do to compete directly with Spain from the start of the American exploration and colonization.

Sabotage Spain's ability to project power. This doesn't have to be entirely so, mind, they just need to have Spain in a position where waging sustained war over the colonies is not so feasible, leading to French colonies being tolerated.

One potential POD are successful Italian Wars for France. Taking Milan would close off the "Spanish Road" and reduce Spain's ability to project power into Germany and the Netherlands, while taking Naples reduces a lot of the reliable revenue that the Spanish crown received through taxation. This could have a butterfly effect of bogging down any wars they fight in central and northern Europe as they are unable to pay for those wars, leading to a cascade effect that keeps them from manning their colonies efficiently. Defense of the colonies then continues to remain in the hands of the conquistadors rather than the Crown, leading to (for example) an autonomous Mexico and Peru. And this independent Spanish-colonialist elite would probably want goods from Europe...such as good French wine, perhaps?
 

Lusitania

Donor
Sabotage Spain's ability to project power. This doesn't have to be entirely so, mind, they just need to have Spain in a position where waging sustained war over the colonies is not so feasible, leading to French colonies being tolerated.

One potential POD are successful Italian Wars for France. Taking Milan would close off the "Spanish Road" and reduce Spain's ability to project power into Germany and the Netherlands, while taking Naples reduces a lot of the reliable revenue that the Spanish crown received through taxation. This could have a butterfly effect of bogging down any wars they fight in central and northern Europe as they are unable to pay for those wars, leading to a cascade effect that keeps them from manning their colonies efficiently. Defense of the colonies then continues to remain in the hands of the conquistadors rather than the Crown, leading to (for example) an autonomous Mexico and Peru. And this independent Spanish-colonialist elite would probably want goods from Europe...such as good French wine, perhaps?
Yes but in all this France has to either encourage or at least give consent to settlers leaving. From what we studied in Canadian history the French king closed emigration to New France and other settler colonies because the French government was afraid of depopulating the country. So if France wants to compete with Spain it needs to increase its presence in new world by increasing its colonial presence both Caribbean cash crop colonies and settler colonies.

In Europe if France had better influence with pope then it would stop the papal declaration that America was exclusive domain of Spain.
 
In Europe if France had better influence with pope then it would stop the papal declaration that America was exclusive domain of Spain.

Once again, a French victory in the Italian wars would help immensely with this. Maybe a sack or two of Rome by French soldiers to put the fear of the Fleur de Lys in the Pope's heart.

Regarding emigration, could prisoner transport help perpetuate the colonies? Instead of condemning people to galley slavery or hanging, perhaps the French government could transport them instead as indentured servants to the Americas?

Perhaps (just as in Spain) one specific region could have privileges for emigration. For example, after an alt-wars of religion, perhaps one region whose nobles are seen by the crown as particularly egregious rebels could see a royal decree that the commoners have carte blanche to emigrate to the colonies. This decree would be an economic war tactic aimed at reducing the wealth of that region's nobility.
 
...
Regarding emigration, could prisoner transport help perpetuate the colonies? Instead of condemning people to galley slavery or hanging, perhaps the French government could transport them instead as indentured servants to the Americas?

Perhaps (just as in Spain) one specific region could have privileges for emigration. For example, after an alt-wars of religion, perhaps one region whose nobles are seen by the crown as particularly egregious rebels could see a royal decree that the commoners have carte blanche to emigrate to the colonies. This decree would be an economic war tactic aimed at reducing the wealth of that region's nobility.

This breeds a colony of uncooperative criminal,& probably degenerate. Look at what happened in the past English colonies. The good loyal stock we're unable to keep the bad subjects in line.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Once again, a French victory in the Italian wars would help immensely with this. Maybe a sack or two of Rome by French soldiers to put the fear of the Fleur de Lys in the Pope's heart.

Regarding emigration, could prisoner transport help perpetuate the colonies? Instead of condemning people to galley slavery or hanging, perhaps the French government could transport them instead as indentured servants to the Americas?

Perhaps (just as in Spain) one specific region could have privileges for emigration. For example, after an alt-wars of religion, perhaps one region whose nobles are seen by the crown as particularly egregious rebels could see a royal decree that the commoners have carte blanche to emigrate to the colonies. This decree would be an economic war tactic aimed at reducing the wealth of that region's nobility.
In regards to war in Italy the best option for France is to break Spanish control over the peninsula and as part of treaty break the treaty giving Americas to Spain.

As for criminal colonist it already did happen. Some of the settlers were criminals and many “fallen women” were sent to New France at chance of being wives to the bachelors.

So it can only be a a small percentage and petty criminals otherwise you will have unruly colonies.

As for from certain regions that could be a possibility. Set a fixed number from all regions of France low enough that they could support such as 1-2 families or single men. Regions that are more hostile or in disfavor with the crown could see their quota increased substantially
 
Yes but in all this France has to either encourage or at least give consent to settlers leaving. From what we studied in Canadian history the French king closed emigration to New France and other settler colonies because the French government was afraid of depopulating the country. So if France wants to compete with Spain it needs to increase its presence in new world by increasing its colonial presence both Caribbean cash crop colonies and settler colonies.

In Europe if France had better influence with pope then it would stop the papal declaration that America was exclusive domain of Spain.
my understanding is that emigration was closed to Huguenots, but open to Catholics. According to wiki, the crown attempted to stimulate emigration in the mid 1600's. It doesn't seem to be a sustained effort though. France's usual state of affairs was short on cash and priorities on the continent sucking up that cash.

regardless, though, it goes without saying that the crown's approach to the new world has to change if one is to expect a different outcome.

I wonder what the result would be if France, at the late date of 1750, had recognized Britain's claim to the Ohio Valley? They did attempt to compromise, correctly evaluating their own weakness vs Britain's strength, but this only led to Britain demanding more of Indiana. Had they not gotten so aggressive in fort building in western NY/PA, and left Ohio an empty claim on both sides, they could have pushed the issue down the road until New France was stronger and France in better shape. The population disparity is always going to be there, but, IMO, the main consideration is a minimum population of New France for defensive purposes, and NF was growing rapidly.
 
my understanding is that emigration was closed to Huguenots, but open to Catholics. According to wiki, the crown attempted to stimulate emigration in the mid 1600's. It doesn't seem to be a sustained effort though.

Some of the earliest settlers were Protestants (and some believe Champlain was originally Protestant himself) but during the Huguenot rebellions of the 1620s, Richelieu banned Protestant settlement, probably doubting their loyalty.

When the royal government took over the colony (1663) it found only 3000 settlers, two thirds of them men. Over the next decade, especially when Jean Talon was Intendant, it made efforts to recruit colonists and develop the colony economically (including sending the “filles du Roy” to balance the gender ratio). But after 1672, when the Dutch War started and Talon returned to France, the royal government essentially stopped these efforts and never really resumed. There would be an occasional ship of settlers now and then but it was never again a major government priority.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Speaking of "France's problem with settler colonies". How many thousands of settlers did the French send to the Americas over the years they had top tier empire in empire, 1604 to 1763? This was a period of 159 years.

And once the Spanish started in 1492, how many thousands did they send over the next 159 years until 1651? Did the Spanish send more in that time than the French sent in their later window? How many of those thousands went to the cash cow highland colonies of Mexico and Peru?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which brings us to the main purpose of this thread. What would France of needed to do to compete directly with Spain from the start of the American exploration and colonization.

It seems to me that was France needs to do to compete directly, is to compete directly, and early, and gain some footholds in the Caribbean basin by 1505 or 1510.

It seems to me that the difference in long-term settler numbers is not so crucial in the first 10-20 years post discovery. We're generally talking companies of 100s of adventurers, not thousands of settlers, at this time.

From there, the highest trajectory for France imperially (if not morally), is for one of their Caribbean holdings to position them better than Spain to either conquer Mexico or Peru or control the trade with Mexico or Peru.

If they conquer Mexico or Peru, the silver/gold wealth opportunities will probably irresistibly attract more Frenchmen than went to OTL's French colonies. In highland areas, French conquerantes and merchants will leave a genetic imprint that will endure and grow, with a Metis population and in some cases bring French wives for a small French creole population base.

If the French are on a somewhat lower imperial trajectory and get Caribbean footholds early but fail to win Mexico or Peru, they could still come across and profit from the starting the sugar plantation model of colony early, which would bring revenue, leave a cultural language imprint, but leave less of a genetic imprint.

The lower trajectory than that would be the French outposts getting entirely squeezed out by the Spanish over time.
 
Top