WI: France has no 19th century demographic crisis?

Let's say the Napoleonic Code doesn't change the primogeniture laws and peasants aren't forced to split estates when passing to the next generation. Let's also say that the theory that says that law change caused France's meager population growth from 1800-1945 is true. What happens to European politics when France follows the same demographic transition trends as the rest of Europe?

Let's say France has a 1% population growth rate annually, a little less than Germany and significantly less than Britain.

It would have 40 million people in 1840, 54 million in 1870, and 73 million in 1900. It would almost certainly have at least economic parity with a unified Germany. I believe that this would completely alter European politics. France might be able to reclaim the Rhineland in the 1840s or 50s. Would France be able to prevent German unification? Would it remain a rival with the UK? If French immigration is as large as German immigration, would America be that much more populous? Perhaps even a significant Francophone population? Let's figure this out.
 
Off the top of my head, it could have a big effect in Algeria; you could see 20 to 30 percent of the population being pied-noir.
 
There is no link between French demographic growth and France gaining control of Rhineland.

Until the early 19th century, France was the number 1 demographic and military power in Europe and it was unable to retain Rhineland.

What this WI changes is that there will probably be no french-prussian war by 1870 because Bismarck will be perfectly aware that such a big France would be extremely difficult to defeat militarily. Instead of provoking France to trigger a war that will help unify Germany, Bismarck will avoid conflict and try to buy french support for his little-Germany unification goal.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
Let's say the Napoleonic Code doesn't change the primogeniture laws and peasants aren't forced to split estates when passing to the next generation. Let's also say that the theory that says that law change caused France's meager population growth from 1800-1945 is true. What happens to European politics when France follows the same demographic transition trends as the rest of Europe?

Let's say France has a 1% population growth rate annually, a little less than Germany and significantly less than Britain.

It would have 40 million people in 1840, 54 million in 1870, and 73 million in 1900. It would almost certainly have at least economic parity with a unified Germany. I believe that this would completely alter European politics. France might be able to reclaim the Rhineland in the 1840s or 50s. Would France be able to prevent German unification? Would it remain a rival with the UK? If French immigration is as large as German immigration, would America be that much more populous? Perhaps even a significant Francophone population? Let's figure this out.

Canada would very well become majority Francophone due a lot of French immigration into Canada. That is going to have huge butterflies in Canadian history.

Also OTL there was a large amount of Quebecois immigration into New England, with large scale French immigration, New England (and perhaps the Upper Midwest) could have a sizable Francophone minority or majority in some areas.
 
Let's say the Napoleonic Code doesn't change the primogeniture laws and peasants aren't forced to split estates when passing to the next generation. Let's also say that the theory that says that law change caused France's meager population growth from 1800-1945 is true. What happens to European politics when France follows the same demographic transition trends as the rest of Europe?

Let's say France has a 1% population growth rate annually, a little less than Germany and significantly less than Britain.

It would have 40 million people in 1840, 54 million in 1870, and 73 million in 1900. It would almost certainly have at least economic parity with a unified Germany. I believe that this would completely alter European politics. France might be able to reclaim the Rhineland in the 1840s or 50s. Would France be able to prevent German unification? Would it remain a rival with the UK? If French immigration is as large as German immigration, would America be that much more populous? Perhaps even a significant Francophone population? Let's figure this out.

There was no significant effect of the Civil Code on demographic history. The Paris Coutume already stipulated an egalitarian split of the estates for the commoners before 1789. The contraction of the demography in France in the 19th c. had many causes, about which the historians are not in consensus.

Event if France had much more people, it still would need coal. The economic growth is linked to, but not caused exclusively by the demographic growth.
 
France
There was no significant effect of the Civil Code on demographic history. The Paris Coutume already stipulated an egalitarian split of the estates for the commoners before 1789. The contraction of the demography in France in the 19th c. had many causes, about which the historians are not in consensus.

Event if France had much more people, it still would need coal. The economic growth is linked to, but not caused exclusively by the demographic growth.

I was just proposing a TL where the demographic problem does not occur. I said in the OP "let's assume" because there's no consensus on why it happened.

And coal isn't the primary driver of economic growth. Institutions are. Japan's economy grew like a rocket with very little coal. Also France has plenty of coal in OTL borders, it just can't afford to have its northern coalfields occupied.


There is no link between French demographic growth and France gaining control of Rhineland.

Until the early 19th century, France was the number 1 demographic and military power in Europe and it was unable to retain Rhineland.

What this WI changes is that there will probably be no french-prussian war by 1870 because Bismarck will be perfectly aware that such a big France would be extremely difficult to defeat militarily. Instead of provoking France to trigger a war that will help unify Germany, Bismarck will avoid conflict and try to buy french support for his little-Germany unification goal.


That's a good point. Austria and Prussia will be jockeying for French patronage in the mid-century. I'm inclined to believe that France would lean towards Austria, as Prussia has territory that France wants. But this complicates the Italian situation. Would France trade Austria for Italy? I doubt it. Would a Franco-Prussian-Italian alliance be very good for Prussia? Yes. It depends on what Prussia can get France in return for supporting Kleindeutschland. Seems to me like France would have little to gain from Prussia achieving hegemony over Germany, as the diplomatic situation could change at any time. If France intervenes on behalf of Austria, however, France can take the Rhineland from Prussia. Maybe not annex it, but create an allied republic or kingdom. This would piss off Britain and perhaps Russia, though. It would be a gamble.

I think that a Second Empire would very much lean Austrian and very much want to remove the Rhineland from Prussian control. Of course the domestic situation is much changed by 1851 so who can say if that could even happen.
 
That's a good point. Austria and Prussia will be jockeying for French patronage in the mid-century.
No they won't. The German Confederation had been founded for just that purpose: As a common defence against French attacks. That is, theoretically, any external attacks, but meant was France, of course. You want to resolve Austro-Prussian dualism and give new life to the German Confederation? No better way for that than to have France attack Prussia or the Bavarian Palatinate. No better way to overcome internal disputes than a common external enemy, after all. Keep in mind that the Austrian-Prussian dualism was not about territory or the like, but about leadership in Germany. And well, that makes allying with France impossible - none of the smaller states would accept a leading power which undermines the German Confederation and causes the loss of German territory. So Austria just can't allow France to take the Rhineland without losing what it wants to maintain, its loose dominance in Germany; nobody will recognize it as the presidial power of the German Confederation if it betrays Germany and the purpose of that Confederation. So any such French designs in the middle of the century would be met by Prussia and Austria (and the smaller German states), while neither the UK nor Russia would condone the French moves.

Incidentally, Napoleon III kinda thought like that historically, and was wrong with it. One reason that Bismarck made such quick peace with Austria in 1866 was to not give France a chance to intervene. Napoleon III had thought Austria would win the war - in which case he would be able to intervene on Prussia's behalf and wrangle some concessions from Prussia in return, like in the Rhineland. He wanted to become Prussia's patron - but that was shot down by Prussia actually winning that war and hence not being in need of rescue. Before France could find some other way to intervene, Bismarck quickly made peace with Austria. But it is notable that in this situation, neither side turned to France, and that was even with the dissolution of the German Confederation.
 
France


I was just proposing a TL where the demographic problem does not occur. I said in the OP "let's assume" because there's no consensus on why it happened.

And coal isn't the primary driver of economic growth. Institutions are. Japan's economy grew like a rocket with very little coal. Also France has plenty of coal in OTL borders, it just can't afford to have its northern coalfields occupied.

Belgium.
 
Top