What should France have done to better secure their North American holdings?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
Nerf the Netherlands, or at least their activities along the Hudson. If you get them to stop selling guns to the Iroquois France will be more inclined to settle the St Lawrence. They were "this" close to abandoning it in the mid 17th century because of constant raids. Like galanx said, a small increase in population goes a long way a hundred years down the line.
Maybe try alternate area to settle, like New England (before the English), so that area might be more attractive. Also work to increase the number of colonists.
My entirely biased answer would be yes, France should do it.
But hindsight is 20/20. While the low population is a big problem, the biggest problem was that France's enemies could walk to France. The army was always going to be more important than the navy. And while France had a good navy at various points it was still second best.
Now that is not to say that things couldn't happen, they just have to line up right.
But hindsight is 20/20. While the low population is a big problem, the biggest problem was that France's enemies could walk to France. The army was always going to be more important than the navy. And while France had a good navy at various points it was still second best.
Now that is not to say that things couldn't happen, they just have to line up right.
If your navy is going to be weaker than your Enemies no matter what, then don't have one in the first place.
France's best strategy in the long term for keeping its colonies is to always win the war in Europe and get there colonies back in the negotiations.
Scrap the navy budget to a minimum and increase the army budget.
France's best strategy in the long term for keeping its colonies is to always win the war in Europe and get there colonies back in the negotiations.
Scrap the navy budget to a minimum and increase the army budget.
The problem is a lot of the income comes from the sugar islands, and you can't fight a war on just credit.
Though your strategy is not far off of what France tried at various points.
France lost Canada not really because its population was too low, but because the French navy was outclassed by the British. The British could support their troops by sea and blockade the French colonies while the French could do neither of these. The French forces in North America actually fought well given these circumstances, but as the war went on, the effects of the naval disparity grew more and more decisive.
It is often portrayed as a choice Louis XV had to make between the army and the navy, but for a kingdom of 20 million subjects, this should not needed to be a choice, not when the British only had about 7-8 million. On paper, the kingdom of France had the resources to produce a dominant army and navy at the same time. So why did this not happen?
Ultimately it was because the British modernized their state finances with the Bank of England, while France’s attempt at a state bank failed. French governments throughout the XVIII century were buried in debt and lacked easy access to credit. This left the treasury regularly short of money, and the kings were then forced to under-fund the navy.
Get the state bank successfully off the ground, and France can have a very different century.
It is often portrayed as a choice Louis XV had to make between the army and the navy, but for a kingdom of 20 million subjects, this should not needed to be a choice, not when the British only had about 7-8 million. On paper, the kingdom of France had the resources to produce a dominant army and navy at the same time. So why did this not happen?
Ultimately it was because the British modernized their state finances with the Bank of England, while France’s attempt at a state bank failed. French governments throughout the XVIII century were buried in debt and lacked easy access to credit. This left the treasury regularly short of money, and the kings were then forced to under-fund the navy.
Get the state bank successfully off the ground, and France can have a very different century.
Last edited:
France could have recruited German immigrants from the Catholic states in the Rhineland, they would have been loyal to the French king and likely have assimilated into the local French population. Even relative small numbers in the late17th and early 18th century would have resulted in a significant increase in the population of French Canada and made a conquest far harder.
It was also politics that held France back. Had Louis XIV been in charge there was a chance it could have worked (a chance does not mean a guarantee though).
Louis XV just did not have the force of personality the French government require under the system that was set up under Louis XIV regency and during his reign.
An idea I like, and I'm even trying to included that somewhere into the timeline I'm working on.
The French could have allowed the Huguenots to migrate to the colonies following the Edict of Fontainebleau instead of basically forcing them to convert. Yes, the French colonies would be mostly Protestant but it would have driven their numbers up greatly. You could even include a clause that includes a pathway to eventual willing conversion.
In the long term population would matter a lot more, especially if the British don't actually enforce any of their anti-expansion treaties(which honestly they had no reason to practically do and it's hard to enforce anyway).
American settlers will cut through and settle in the Mississippi valley and divide French holdings in 2, at that point either France decisively wins against the English to the point where they can enforce their claims but still get a mostly English-speaking hinterland or they will de facto have to recognize 2 smaller and divided Louisiana and Quebec.
Jonathan1997
Banned
France was also fight a 300 years war with the Hasburgs of Span and Austria they where fighting on a lot more fronts than England.
And with France valuing the much more profitable colonies in the Carribean more than New France and Louisiana - that's going to have a significant role in terms of military stuff, especially with a country more land-focused than naval focused (not just national policy, but as far as having a pool of sailors to draw on in the first place that's not necessarily as much bigger as the total populations).
As long as New France isn't as profitable as other territories, other territories are going to have a higher priority when it comes to signing peace treaties on who keeps what.
As long as New France isn't as profitable as other territories, other territories are going to have a higher priority when it comes to signing peace treaties on who keeps what.
Agree that the Ohio/Mississippi valleys would be more of a challenge. Of course they were not really held by France to begin with, but were essentially controlled by the local tribes who were more or less allies.
The lands actually in French possession could have been preserved with better naval assistance.
And it was this very conflict which enabled England to squeeze through & become a major power(she didn’t have to fight- @ least all by herself- Austria and/or France- which were both bigger than England- since they were busy fighting each other).
France had no chance to hold onto New France. French peasants did not need the land so settling a cold climate in greater numbers really isn’t a solution. The Ancien Régime would have needed heavy reforms in order to stop bleeding money and to avoid their revolution as well. If they’re able to do this then they have a chance to regroup for another war with the UK but ultimately France is on borrowed time as far as the Americas are concerned
France also really didn’t seem, in its heart of hearts, to want to hold onto Canada anyway(remember Voltaire’s con-
tempous characterization of the place as “just a few acres of snow”?)
Last edited:
The problem here is that Protestants wouldn’t be loyal, they would welcome a takeover by the English or Dutch. It‘s why I suggested recruiting Catholic Germans even if they didn’t adopt French, they would still be loyal to France.
Jonathan1997
Banned
England had banking reforms under King William III which enabled them to have the money to fight France also the population exploded to 17 million by the end of the 18th century.