France historically was the strongest country in Europe largely due to its demographic strength. Over the 19th century however this advantage evaporated. Between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War France's population grew only by a third. Germany's population in contrast nearly tripled while Britain grew even faster. Suppose France manages to grow at an equivalent pace such that there are nearly 90 million Frenchmen by 1914. How does this affect the world?
Bigger French Population
- Thread starter GrinningIdiot
- Start date
More French emigration for one, mainly to the U.S., Canada (I.E. Quebec) and Argentina. France is stronger militarily, and thus WW1 (if it still happens) ends pretty swiftly.
Thinking about my earlier post, I actually think there'd be a large French diaspora in Argentina, a fellow Latin Catholic country with fertile land and a pleasant climate that saw a decent amount of French immigration even IOTL. A French Quarter in Buenos Aires, anyone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Argentines
Well even OTL Buenos Aires is known as the Paris of South America, mostly because of the arquitecture but it could see more cultural influence too. Many of the Argentine "founding fathers" especially the more European-oriented ones like Sarmiento were big admirers of French culture, as well as scientists and intellectuals. Maybe we could see deeper French influence in Argentine high society.
In Europe, I think Paris would get bigger faster, and other French cities will also compete. Maybe we'll see a less unitary, less Paris centered France?
All the extra manpower would make them an even stronger military and industrial power. Perhaps they could dictate German and Italian unification on their terms.
In Europe, I think Paris would get bigger faster, and other French cities will also compete. Maybe we'll see a less unitary, less Paris centered France?
All the extra manpower would make them an even stronger military and industrial power. Perhaps they could dictate German and Italian unification on their terms.
elkarlo
Banned
Wonder if they'd make a quarter or fearing being integrated, would move somewhere else where they could be the dominate group. Think the Germans in southern Brazil maybe.
And when France and Britain cozy up, you might see some French immigration to Australia or NZ. Wouldn't take that many to go to NZ to give it a Franco flavor
Or, might France have a colony in Australia or New Zealand? France did quite a bit of exploration Down Under IOTL, and reportedly Western Australia was only settled by the British because they'd heard that the French were going to settle it, and there was almost a French colony on the South Island of New Zealand near Christchurch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaroa). More population pressures might drive France to found a colony Down Under.
elkarlo
Banned
Very possible. Also with more settlers would north africa be integrated better? That would be like Britain's India, a source of workers that understood what the French would require of them and know the language. Would have Barbers in sub Sahara Africa maybe?
Nah, the population pressure would only be felt in the middle to the second half of the 19th century if it had a stronger demographic transition, by the time Australia was firmly british and so was New Zealand.
Although New Caledonia can certainly support more people than it currently has, it would be interesting to have a decisively french majority (to the extent of australia) in New Caledonia (and maybe the New Hebrides), would be quite sad tho. And ultimately small among the larger migration flow.
French Patagonia? Patagonia wasn't settled by the Argentines and Chileans until the 1870s, and there was a weird French dude who proclaimed himself King of Patagonia. Might the French expand upon those (admittedly ridiculous) claims and colonize Patagonie?
Gian
Banned
I kinda don't buy the argument that simply increasing France's population leads to more colonial success (especially in North America). As the OP stated, France was THE demographic power of Europe throughout the Age of Colonization, but it was this belief that they needed to retain that strength in Europe (plus the desire to retain the lucrative trade with the native tribes) that prevented them from using that advantage, especially in New France where they lagged behind the British colonies in terms of population growth (especially thanks to the latter's immigration policy)
In short, you need a different mindset on the part of the French government in order for things to work out differently.
In short, you need a different mindset on the part of the French government in order for things to work out differently.
The XIX century is different than the previous centuries though. Industrialization was causing a lot of internal migration and people were now more likely to emigrate than before. Many more French people emigrated in this century than in the previous one. Also the French government was now more aware of the value of settler colonies, seeing the success the British had. But there could have been a lot more emigrants still, if the birth rate had been higher.
OTL France built a huge colonial empire so I’m not sure it can get much larger. They are not going to get back North America. But you will probably see larger European populations in Algeria, New Caledonia, Polynesia and Madagascar. And definitely more emigrants to the Americas. Maybe Louisiana retains more of its francophone identity ITTL.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
A bigger French population post-1815 (45-60 million by 1870)... I wonder if it will help to keep challenging the UK, Russia and later, Germany...
Lets say France sent more settlers to New France during the age of exploration. New France had a population of 70,000 at its peak in our timeline but lets say instead they have a population of 7,000,000 at their peak in this alternate timeline which was totally possible because New France was established earlier than the British colonies and New France had a huge landmass. To attract settlers they could of offered incentive to peasants that did not have any family very similar to how they sent the Fille du roi but on a much larger scale.
That's way too high. Canada's main export was furs, but those do not encourage large human settlement, quite the contrary. Too many people will mean the animal population will collapse. The whole purpose of the colony would have to change and even then, why would huge numbers of people want to move to a place that is much colder than France and has worse soil? Many of the French people that did go there ended up returning home.
Louisiana perhaps could have attracted a lot more settlers, but it was not established until 1699, and not really settled until after the war of the Spanish Succession ended. How many can you realistically settle between 1714 and 1760?
They could of built and worked in different industries in the future as well. Farming was also really popular in New France. There were probably places in New France that had good weather. I think this is only possible if France won the Seven Years War or if it somehow kept it's colonies. And French Louisiana was actually established in 1682 not 1699.
Last edited:
Farming is a normal human activity so it's logical that the Canadiens were mostly farmers. But they didn't get rich by farming there, not like the plantation owners in the Caribbean. They grew basically the same crops as in France, and France has better soil and a longer growing season. The one thing Canada could really export was furs, and that did not correlate with high human population. There also were long wars against the Iroquois for control of this trade, and peace was not reached with them until 1701.
1682 was the year of La Salle's voyage, but he did not settle Louisiana. The first actual settlement was in 1699 at Fort Maurepas.
You can certainly have the population of New France be larger than it was.
-The 1685 expedition to Louisiana could actually arrive there.
-The Mississippi bubble could be avoided.
-Protestants could be tolerated and allowed to emigrate there (this may require a different monarch than Louis XIV ; maybe the Fronde succeeds?)
-The French government decides to ship a lot more convicts over.
But you're asking for the population to be insanely large.
Thomas1195
Banned
This probably guarantees an Anglo-German alliance.
On the other hand, a Britain-France-Russia Entente ITTL means the Germans/Central Powers are f*ck, big time.