Delvestius
Banned
With any PoD after 1648, have the French and British colonial empires be of a similar size by 1900 while still being the two largest empires. What effect would this have on late 19th century balance-of-power politics?
AHC: Equalize French and British colonialism
- Thread starter Delvestius
- Start date
IOTL a major reason why France didn't do as well in the colonialism stakes was that they had a long land border to defend, so they couldn't get away with having a tiny army and pumping resources into the navy instead like Britain was doing. So to equalise the French and British Empires you could try to do a Germany (and possibly also Spain) screw, so that France no longer has to worry about major land wars. Then again, if her neighbours are so weak, France might just decide to ignore colonialism and go on a European conquest spree instead.
Alternatively, you could keep France's development as IOTL but weaken Britain's position somehow. Maybe if you stopped the Mughal Empire from collapsing, the Brits wouldn't have been able to take over India, which IOTL was considered the "jewel in the crown" of the Empire.
Alternatively, you could keep France's development as IOTL but weaken Britain's position somehow. Maybe if you stopped the Mughal Empire from collapsing, the Brits wouldn't have been able to take over India, which IOTL was considered the "jewel in the crown" of the Empire.
Delvestius
Banned
I imagined a brit-screw would be easier than a Frankwank, so bonus points for the latter.
Napoleon stops after Tilsit. With French hegemony in mainland Europe, France can devote more resources to building up a larger colonial empire.
I suppose one possible PoD for this could be if James II manages to keep his throne, achieve Catholic-Protestant tolerance, and the Glorious Revolution never happens.
French-British relations in such a PoD would be much better than OTL, which stops the British from constantly nibbling away at French possessions. Britain also doesn't benefit from the transfer of world trade/finance from Amsterdam to London that occurred during William III's reign, so they will be slightly hampered in their empire-building schemes. Bonus points if Spain succeeds in reforming its administration over the course of the 18thC, which would create a natural 'enemy' for the Franco-British axis to oppose.
With such a PoD, you'd probably see various British/French arrangements to divide the world between themselves. India, for example, will probably end up with the French getting the Mysore region, while Britain gets Bengal and so on. While not all of these expansion plans will actually be translated into reality, it does mean that the British and French empires will expand at a similar rate without devouring each other, at least.
This British-French axis will probably be contested by a rival alliance of Spain, Austria and (likely) the Netherlands, with Prussia likely joining later on the British-French side and Russia on the Austrian. In war, this means that France will deal with the land conflict in Europe, while Britain deals with the naval and international conflict.
To continue this scenario into the late 19thC you'd almost certainly have to get rid of the French Revolution.
French-British relations in such a PoD would be much better than OTL, which stops the British from constantly nibbling away at French possessions. Britain also doesn't benefit from the transfer of world trade/finance from Amsterdam to London that occurred during William III's reign, so they will be slightly hampered in their empire-building schemes. Bonus points if Spain succeeds in reforming its administration over the course of the 18thC, which would create a natural 'enemy' for the Franco-British axis to oppose.
With such a PoD, you'd probably see various British/French arrangements to divide the world between themselves. India, for example, will probably end up with the French getting the Mysore region, while Britain gets Bengal and so on. While not all of these expansion plans will actually be translated into reality, it does mean that the British and French empires will expand at a similar rate without devouring each other, at least.
This British-French axis will probably be contested by a rival alliance of Spain, Austria and (likely) the Netherlands, with Prussia likely joining later on the British-French side and Russia on the Austrian. In war, this means that France will deal with the land conflict in Europe, while Britain deals with the naval and international conflict.
To continue this scenario into the late 19thC you'd almost certainly have to get rid of the French Revolution.
There are already time lines changing just a few évents that would produce your result.
Have Louis XV not conclude the stupid peace at the end of the war of austrian succession and have him support Dupleix longer. Robert Clive did only copycat what Dupleix had successfully started 15 years earlier.
The land wars in Europe are only a partial explanation. France's demographics was much less dynamic than Britain's, especially from the early 19th century on.
I have one but with lots of butterflies.
The reason the Brits were better off was that they had a headstart and stole the first Colonial French Empire in North America and India. So no more French influence in Canada and Asia for many decades, which gives them time to develop independently without threat.
Now if France manage to keep some possessions there after the Seven year War it becomes much easier.
Alternatively, you can work on the Louisiana territory which is massive and possibly very rich. Instead of selling it outright, Napoleon creates a company with an Imperial Charter for the exploitation of the territory and uses the price of the charter to pay for his St Domingue expedition, thus keeping the expedition as OTL and exploiting Louisiane better with little impact on the State resources'.
Deleted member 67076
Have France go for smaller, more easily defensible territories spread out across rather than something that would overstretch the colonists like in Louisiana.
Maybe a Louisiana centered in the Delta, French Chile, Senegal, South Africa, etc, etc. At the same time, it'd be a good idea to keep the Mughals stop collapsing.
Maybe a Louisiana centered in the Delta, French Chile, Senegal, South Africa, etc, etc. At the same time, it'd be a good idea to keep the Mughals stop collapsing.
Kingpoleon
Banned
In the Seven Years War, Prussia immediately launches an invasion into Saxony with the vast majority of its army. Quickly crushing the Saxon army, Prussia manages to gain the eastern half of Bohemia in Austria, the part that was literally Bohemia and not Moravia. Austria launches several attempts, but fails to dislodge the Prussians from Prague. Prussia meanwhile forms several militias that ambush the French troops that try to invade, keeping them out of the border. Russia uses its troops to deal with the Hungarian Rebellion Austria was having.
Prussia gains a victory over Austria and Saxony, forcing Austria to sign the Treaty of Dresden, in which Prussia gains the Electorate of Saxony. The main Prussian army turned around and managed to envelop a newly invading French force with their militia. France agrees to peace in Europe in exchange for one and a half million francs. Russia tries an invasion in Ost Prussia, which fails easily and Prussia forces Russia to pay the equivalent of £85,000. Prussia then declares peace in Europe, and France begins sending more troops to Canada. They manage to turn the tide.
In India, the Mughals made a quick dash at Calcutta, which they held long enough for 40,000 French to arrive. By the end of the next year, Britain is forced to surrender British Canada to France. France later frees Canada as a dominion in 1858, while France and Britain make equal empires between themselves in Africa. The French portion of India is slightly expanded, and France owns about 65% of Australia to the rest being British as is New Zealand.
Prussia gains a victory over Austria and Saxony, forcing Austria to sign the Treaty of Dresden, in which Prussia gains the Electorate of Saxony. The main Prussian army turned around and managed to envelop a newly invading French force with their militia. France agrees to peace in Europe in exchange for one and a half million francs. Russia tries an invasion in Ost Prussia, which fails easily and Prussia forces Russia to pay the equivalent of £85,000. Prussia then declares peace in Europe, and France begins sending more troops to Canada. They manage to turn the tide.
In India, the Mughals made a quick dash at Calcutta, which they held long enough for 40,000 French to arrive. By the end of the next year, Britain is forced to surrender British Canada to France. France later frees Canada as a dominion in 1858, while France and Britain make equal empires between themselves in Africa. The French portion of India is slightly expanded, and France owns about 65% of Australia to the rest being British as is New Zealand.
It's
Banned
I often hear this argument that being an island is somehow an advantage. Well, being an island also means that you need a big navy to defend, and navies are expensive and, unlike an army, it takes a long time to build up and run down with the ebb and flow of international tensions. You effectively have to maintain a large navy all the time- calling up, training and discharging men makes an army much more flexible and therefore cheaper.
France could get away with having a large standing army at least SOME of the time; Britain had to maintain a large navy ALL the time.
But having that navy is of huge benefit to colonial aspirations, giving global power projection. The fact that the navy is such a necessity wasn't something Britain overcame, it was the basis for her power. That and the international finance hub.
Avoid the disaster at Trafalgar and have Napoleon not ruining his entire empire by invading Spain/Russia. Have Napoleon reach a favorable peace with the Coalition and the French Navy can grow. The French East India Company (or some other company) can start colonizing Australia, specifically the region of OTL New South Wales. (the French were looking at Australia a lot, before Trafalgar crippled the navy). Australia can become a great place for ship building. Deport people to Australia, aka all of the undesired people; criminals, radicals, royalists, etc. From there, France can spread her power throughout Asia, Africa and the rest of the Pacific.
Anaxagoras
Banned
The most important advantage that Britain had over France in the game of global empire was that stable financial institutions developed in Britain about a century earlier than they did in France. Perhaps fiddle with the life of John Law a bit and you might get a more serious central bank and bond market in France during the reign of Louis XV rather than during the reign of Napoleon. If that happens, France can compete with Britain on much more equal terms.
Caesar Biden
Banned
America goes independent in 1776 per OTL, this time gaining all of Canada. The Napoleonic Wars are then much worse, with almost all American territories pulling a Haiti. France invades Britain, and their Indian territories collapse. France eventually loses, but Britain doesn't benefit from it. This leads to a general decline in both France and Britain, giving way to the rise of powers such as Germany. By the end of the 19th century, all that France or Britain have is a few holdings in Africa of about equal value.
It's
Banned
Army v navy
And having a large army cannot? Armies can be used for attack as well as defence. You can bombard foreign coasts until the cows come home, but in the end you need to have (military) boots on the ground to claim that ground.
International finance hub- cause or effect of empire?
It's hard to imagine what further innate advantages France would need in addition to the ones it already had enjoyed over Britain to match their empire without turning this thread into a Frogwank.
And having a large army cannot? Armies can be used for attack as well as defence. You can bombard foreign coasts until the cows come home, but in the end you need to have (military) boots on the ground to claim that ground.International finance hub- cause or effect of empire?
It's hard to imagine what further innate advantages France would need in addition to the ones it already had enjoyed over Britain to match their empire without turning this thread into a Frogwank.
Right, but having a large navy with a small army is more feasible for overseas empire building than vice versa.
As a country in the center of Europe, most of France's resources are inevitably concentrated in continental issues. France is a big country with too many borders and too many enemies. Therefore, a scenario where the French colonies are as successful as the British ones is obviously a French wank, given that France is historically much more populous.
If we "equalize" their naval and commercial power this would only last, let's say, 30-40 years: until a next war where the French assumes its natural dominant position as the most populous country in Europe.
If we "equalize" their naval and commercial power this would only last, let's say, 30-40 years: until a next war where the French assumes its natural dominant position as the most populous country in Europe.
But one could argue that by the end of Louis XIV's reign, France no longer faced any serious threat of land invasion. Spain had gone over to the Bourbon side. France had achieved "natural borders" on five of its six sides and the sixth side only bordered some minor German states and the Austrian Netherlands. These states felt more menaced by France than vice-versa.
Meanwhile, France in 1715 had laid the groundwork for some substantial colonial possessions in North America, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and India. Over the next three decades of peace, Louis XV's regime had an opportunity to really try to settle and fortify these newfound holdings. They did this to some degree (the settlement of Louisiana began in earnest during this period), but they could have gone a lot further. The population of New France tripled between 1715 and 1750, but only to 55,000.