Having the French government promote colonial settlement more would help. IOTL the only time it really did so was from about 1663-1672. Even then it was a halfhearted effort - Colbert, the man responsible for New France recruitment, was concerned about France becoming "depopulated," despite the fact it was Europe's most populous kingdom.
If I remember correctly, Richelieu banned the Huguenots (Protestants) from going to New France so they went to England/Netherland/Prussia instead. If he gets his mind in order on this one and allows them to emigrate, you might get a good PoD!
Having the French government promote colonial settlement more would help. IOTL the only time it really did so was from about 1663-1672. Even then it was a halfhearted effort - Colbert, the man responsible for New France recruitment, was concerned about France becoming "depopulated," despite the fact it was Europe's most populous kingdom.
It was the most populous yes, also one of the biggest territory wise!
The big difference compared to England is that the English, at least after the Union with Scotland, do not have a home front. They have a sea that protects them and can keep the resident army to a minimum, something France could not afford given its massive borders with everybody, something that will come back until the end of the colonial era with the lasting threat of Prussia.
Funnyhat said:True, but I'd argue that after 1714, when Philip V was confirmed as king of Spain, France really didn't face any serious threats on its borders. It had freed itself from Hapsburg encirclement. At that point I think it could have put more effort into overseas settlement than it did.
It was the most populous yes, also one of the biggest territory wise!
The big difference compared to England is that the English, at least after the Union with Scotland, do not have a home front. They have a sea that protects them and can keep the resident army to a minimum, something France could not afford given its massive borders with everybody, something that will come back until the end of the colonial era with the lasting threat of Prussia.
If I remember correctly, Richelieu banned the Huguenots (Protestants) from going to New France so they went to England/Netherland/Prussia instead. If he gets his mind in order on this one and allows them to emigrate, you might get a good PoD!
Having the French government promote colonial settlement more would help. IOTL the only time it really did so was from about 1663-1672. Even then it was a halfhearted effort - Colbert, the man responsible for New France recruitment, was concerned about France becoming "depopulated," despite the fact it was Europe's most populous kingdom.
No, it is Louis XIV, some 50 years later, who forced Huguenots to choose between conversion or exile.
Now, having more french immigration to the Americas would probably have changed nothing to France's manpower in Europe. The décisive factor to population was food production. So population had a natural tendency to grow and fill the gap allowed by food production until demographic growth was blocked by food production.
Immigrating to new lands means finding new food resources and making some food resources available in the land you're leaving.
Besides, you don't even need to have massive immigration each year. You just need to have it start earlier, be continuous, and the mix of continuous immigration with natural growth by birth will change everything.
Remember that the english north american colonies had a population of around 250.000 by 1700 (slaves included).
Have the french colonization start by 1540. Just have 500 settlers going to America each year and it will completely change History. By 1600, you could have already 50.000 to 80.000 people in the french american colonies.
And they will probably no stay limited to the Saint-Laurent and Acadia. They will probably take control of a large part and even maybe most of the east coast before any english settler arrives.
Allowing the Huguenot's passage is the most obvious alternate shot in the arm for French colonial America. After revocation of Nantes, hundreds of thousands left France for England, Holland and Germany. Having them go to New France could easily place them at parity with the 13 Colonies.
However, New France was an extremely conservative Catholic society. They would be unhappy about being inundated with thousands of Protestants.
No, it is Louis XIV, some 50 years later, who forced Huguenots to choose between conversion or exile.
Now, having more french immigration to the Americas would probably have changed nothing to France's manpower in Europe. The décisive factor to population was food production. So population had a natural tendency to grow and fill the gap allowed by food production until demographic growth was blocked by food production.
Immigrating to new lands means finding new food resources and making some food resources available in the land you're leaving.
Besides, you don't even need to have massive immigration each year. You just need to have it start earlier, be continuous, and the mix of continuous immigration with natural growth by birth will change everything.
Remember that the english north american colonies had a population of around 250.000 by 1700 (slaves included).
Have the french colonization start by 1540. Just have 500 settlers going to America each year and it will completely change History. By 1600, you could have already 50.000 to 80.000 people in the french american colonies.
And they will probably no stay limited to the Saint-Laurent and Acadia. They will probably take control of a large part and even maybe most of the east coast before any english settler arrives.
You make plenty of sense Matteo, keep the good work. Just a little detail:
the evaluation of the population may be a little low, at the end of the 16th
century, only around the Great Lakes you've got over 80,000 residents and,
more if you count the seasonnals from everywhere. Gerard
No, it is Louis XIV, some 50 years later, who forced Huguenots to choose between conversion or exile.
Now, having more french immigration to the Americas would probably have changed nothing to France's manpower in Europe. The décisive factor to population was food production. So population had a natural tendency to grow and fill the gap allowed by food production until demographic growth was blocked by food production.
Immigrating to new lands means finding new food resources and making some food resources available in the land you're leaving.
Besides, you don't even need to have massive immigration each year. You just need to have it start earlier, be continuous, and the mix of continuous immigration with natural growth by birth will change everything.
Remember that the english north american colonies had a population of around 250.000 by 1700 (slaves included).
Have the french colonization start by 1540. Just have 500 settlers going to America each year and it will completely change History. By 1600, you could have already 50.000 to 80.000 people in the french american colonies.
And they will probably no stay limited to the Saint-Laurent and Acadia. They will probably take control of a large part and even maybe most of the east coast before any english settler arrives.
Likewise, would this also work for the British colonies?
What if the British increased their emigration by a factor of 10, would the same apply in regards to manpower as in France?
regards filer