WI New France had the same population as the 13 colonies.

So the pod occurs some time around the reign of Louis XIII with pro colonist policies, which leads to French colonist pouring into North America like the British, so by the mid 18th century New France has the same population as BNA mostly concentrated in Quebec and the Great Lakes region, with lower Mississippi having a good number of Europeans.

How would this effect the French ambition Europe?

And would it allow France to do better in the wars against the Brits?
 
Not nearly as viable. Besides, the British colonies were often founded by non-Brits or the various religious groups fleeing from the English monarchy and their changing views on what religion should be in charge. The religious beliefs of many of these Scots and Englishmen went well with the Dutch and Germans who were either there first or came to settle, so they could end up making common cause. For France... Well, why not just sent their people to Haiti instead of Louisianna? That was were the money was. Sure, loads would die, but I can't see the French sending the couple hundred thousand needed to set up these colonies in the first place.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Perhaps, rather than persecute the Huguenots, the French kings allow them to create their own Protestant Church in the New World provided they remain loyal to the French crown.
 
Perhaps, rather than persecute the Huguenots, the French kings allow them to create their own Protestant Church in the New World provided they remain loyal to the French crown.

... unlikely. Not only is that a politically thorny issue, sticking a bunch of religious dissidents right next to large concentrations of people who's government has provided material and political aid to them in the past, far from the direct perveiw of the French crown, but the fact is Louisiana is profitable because of the fur trade. Changing it into a high-population colony means changing the economic balance and relations with the Natives, which just isent worth it from the veiw of French coffers.

You need a cash crop that can't just be grown better in Haiti, or a France less responsible with her native forests. Oh, and less easily arable land on France itself so the large French agricultural sector can't absorb its growing population as effectively.
 
Not nearly as viable. Besides, the British colonies were often founded by non-Brits or the various religious groups fleeing from the English monarchy and their changing views on what religion should be in charge. The religious beliefs of many of these Scots and Englishmen went well with the Dutch and Germans who were either there first or came to settle, so they could end up making common cause. For France... Well, why not just sent their people to Haiti instead of Louisianna? That was were the money was. Sure, loads would die, but I can't see the French sending the couple hundred thousand needed to set up these colonies in the first place.

Well then again, the French never really tried to grow sugarcane there as the Spanish and later America did. In 2012, Haiti produced 4,5 million tons or so of sugar cane, whereas Louisiana alone with a smaller population produced 13,5 million tons of sugarcane. While it can be argued that this is modern agriculture, but by the early 1800s, Louisiana was already a major producer of sugar and is wetter and more appropriate for both rice and sugarcane than Haiti. Certainly more sugarcane was produced in Louisiana than early 1800s Haiti. Essentially, France missed out on growing sugarcane in Louisiana.

Mind you the economy of Haiti is based around sugar production and is still unable with 67% of their population in agriculture to compete with Louisiana with far less reliance on sugar and the majority of their rural population partly also practicing aquaculture.
 
Last edited:
You could also have the French take up tobacco farming to increase economic viability of mainland North America areas. This would also change the trajectory of the slave trade where instead of Haiti more slaves will end up in North America.
 
Not nearly as viable. Besides, the British colonies were often founded by non-Brits or the various religious groups fleeing from the English monarchy and their changing views on what religion should be in charge. The religious beliefs of many of these Scots and Englishmen went well with the Dutch and Germans who were either there first or came to settle, so they could end up making common cause. For France... Well, why not just sent their people to Haiti instead of Louisianna? That was were the money was. Sure, loads would die, but I can't see the French sending the couple hundred thousand needed to set up these colonies in the first place.
Because there's slaves who can do sugar planting better than French subjects.

Given that one of the leading cause of the French Revolution was overpopulation,I think it would have stabilized the regime greatly if they started shipping people off to New France forcefully.
 
Because there's slaves who can do sugar planting better than French subjects.

Given that one of the leading cause of the French Revolution was overpopulation,I think it would have stabilized the regime greatly if they started shipping people off to New France forcefully.

On the macro level, maybe, but that's like saying the farmers in the US during the 1920's should have grown less grain to keep the prices up, shipping competition down, and therefore stave off the collapse of their economic viability. Technically its possible, but no French landowner individually is going to impoverish himself by giving up his tendents when everybody knows not everybody is going to evenly split the burdan, and that neighbor who didn't cut back is making more at your expense.

Not to mention France lost Louisiana decades before the effects of said overcrowding (combined with mounting debt and policy of free trade which made the traditional government response of subsidizing bread prices in lean times to keep it within the means of the commoners impossible) kicked in means putting the cart before the horse
 
On the macro level, maybe, but that's like saying the farmers in the US during the 1920's should have grown less grain to keep the prices up, shipping competition down, and therefore stave off the collapse of their economic viability. Technically its possible, but no French landowner individually is going to impoverish himself by giving up his tendents when everybody knows not everybody is going to evenly split the burdan, and that neighbor who didn't cut back is making more at your expense.

Not to mention France lost Louisiana decades before the effects of said overcrowding (combined with mounting debt and policy of free trade which made the traditional government response of subsidizing bread prices in lean times to keep it within the means of the commoners impossible) kicked in means putting the cart before the horse
My point is that overpopulation in France didn't just happen in one day.By the 17th century,France was already the most populous country in Europe.What I fail to understand is why the French are so reluctant of leaving France,don't they get free land in the New World?To my knowledge,there was also a lot of urban poor.The British to my knowledge actually sent a lot of urban poor to colonies by force,and from what I learn from the French Revolution and France before that,the King was terrified of the urban poor.Louis XIV in particular moved to Versailles partly out of a desire to get away from them.
 
Last edited:
My point is that overpopulation in France didn't just happen in one day.By the 17th century,France was already the most populous country in Europe.What I fail to understand is why the French are so reluctant of leaving France,don't they get free land in the New World?To my knowledge,there was also a lot of urban poor.The British to my knowledge actually sent a lot of urban poor to colonies by force,and from what I learn from the French Revolution and France before that,the King was terrified of the urban poor.Louis XIV in particular moved to Versailles partly out of a desire to get away from them.
Why leave everything and everyone you know, to end up in a pestilential wildland if you have no good reason for it ? (i.e Being unsafe/miserable)
You don't just need to declare one colony to be open for settlement for it to be settled. You need incentives. Some good enough to make the people think their life would be better there than where they are.

As for the Louis XIV 's move to Versailles, it was not by fear of the urban poor, but the nobles (The Fronde)
 
Why leave everything and everyone you know, to end up in a pestilential wildland if you have no good reason for it ? (i.e Being unsafe/miserable)
You don't just need to declare one colony to be open for settlement for it to be settled. You need incentives. Some good enough to make the people think their life would be better there than where they are.

As for the Louis XIV 's move to Versailles, it was not by fear of the urban poor, but the nobles (The Fronde)
A lot of Frenchmen were already miserable enough and have nothing to lose but their lives.

In regards to safety,the same can be said about the colonies of other countries in the Americans.The 13 colonies and the Portuguese ones weren't safe to begin with either and were fairly miserable when they first started.

As for Louis XIV's move to the Versailles,it was partly due to a fear of the urban poor.During the Fronde,the mob stormed the palace and even entered his room.They only left him alone when they found that he was asleep.Dude was absolutely terrified of the mob and don't want to experience that anymore.
 
Because there's slaves who can do sugar planting better than French subjects.

Given that one of the leading cause of the French Revolution was overpopulation,I think it would have stabilized the regime greatly if they started shipping people off to New France forcefully.
Slaves in name work and die just as well as slaves in fact.
 
Slaves in name work and die just as well as slaves in fact.
Slaves are more efficient and in much better supply.In the minds of plantation owners,it's much more efficient to just work their slaves to death and then buy more slaves.There are a lot more questions if you do that to Frenchmen,not to mention French settlers are in much shorter supply.Frenchmen simply won't go to the Caribbean if you try to work them to death.
 
Slaves are more efficient and in much better supply.In the minds of plantation owners,it's much more efficient to just work their slaves to death and then buy more slaves.There are a lot more questions if you do that to Frenchmen,not to mention French settlers are in much shorter supply.Frenchmen simply won't go to the Caribbean if you try to work them to death.
Indeed. Nor will they be interested in swamps or areas only used by the French as bases in which to buy otter pelts from natives. And they are going to need to fight and kill a lot of natives for the land in the north. They got along well with tribes partially because they did not settle down, and even then their own allies massacred and robbed them once or twice.
 
Perhaps Quebec is turned into a large scale penal colony?

If Quebec was still any kind of a threat then the Colonies think twice and probably do not revolt.
 
Indeed. Nor will they be interested in swamps or areas only used by the French as bases in which to buy otter pelts from natives. And they are going to need to fight and kill a lot of natives for the land in the north. They got along well with tribes partially because they did not settle down, and even then their own allies massacred and robbed them once or twice.
That brings a question--why are the Americans so interested in these lands?If the Americans can settle them successful,so too can the French.
 
That brings a question--why are the Americans so interested in these lands?If the Americans can settle them successful,so too can the French.
They New Yorkers and New England's certainly showed no interest in invading northwards, which was why the War of 1812 didn't have the major cities of British North America occupied. And the Americans were only really interested in the mouth of the Mississippi since so much of their trade went down the river. The northern half of the Louisianna Purchase (which Napoleon offered, the Americans not having asked about it) was called the Great American Desert. For the longest time it was like Oregon Trail. Get to the other side of the continent as quickly as possible without leaving too many sunbleached skeletons behind.
 
Slaves are more efficient and in much better supply.In the minds of plantation owners,it's much more efficient to just work their slaves to death and then buy more slaves.There are a lot more questions if you do that to Frenchmen,not to mention French settlers are in much shorter supply.Frenchmen simply won't go to the Caribbean if you try to work them to death.

Plus, white Europeans weren't used to the tropical heat, and so tended to die off much more quickly than black Africans.
 
Top