History questions not worth their own thread III

[Masada]

Spoiler :

Not that big, I can assure you.

 

[Tee Kay]

It roughly (and roughly is the operative word; there were no such thing as international borders as we know them today) covers the coastal regions of what is now Tamil Nadu, India. Like all states, its influence fluctuates over time, but the ruler only ever directly controlled a small region in and around the capital (ie royal residence); the rest were governed by local rulers and loosely binded to the center by tribute or allegience, or simply occasional military raids.

 

[Linkman226]

That's cool, thanks

 

[bombshoo]

Why did the growth of the French population slow so much in the second part of the 19th century and partially into the 20th century compared to other European Powers?

 

[General Pilates]

Why did the growth of the French population slow so much in the second part of the 19th century and partially into the 20th century compared to other European Powers?

If I'm not wrong the French march towards industrialization and urbanization, which would have spurred further population growth didn't occur due to the lack of natural reserves of coal and other resources required for heavy industry, though there is probably more to this and I could be wrong completely.

 

[Tee Kay]

I know the French started having less children before most Western countries. Maybe it's just a cultural thing.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think a large part of it is cultural. In the early 18th century France was exceptional in Europe in that it has a large class of small farmers taking up almost the whole country, with the result that they tended to limit their offspring so as to avoid breaking up holdings into unsustainable fragments when passing them on to the next generation. In other regions of Western Europe, the continued predominance of large land-owners lead to the spread of wage labour as the main sort of agricultural labour (sometimes through middlemen, particularly in Britain), who had no particular interest in the sustainability of population growth, while in Central and Eastern Europe there was generally enough land left to be brought under the plough that sustainability wasn't much of a worry. This presumably had some impact on French cultural norms, particularly given that the very nature of the tendency meant that the farmer class remained an unusually large proportion of the population.

 

[LightSpectra]

Couldn't tell you how much of an impact this had, but France appeared to be far more liberal than other countries, so birth control was likely more socially acceptable.

 

[say1988]

I think a large part of it is cultural. In the early 18th century France was exceptional in Europe in that it has a large class of small farmers taking up almost the whole country, with the result that they tended to limit their offspring so as to avoid breaking up holdings into unsustainable fragments when passing them on to the next generation.

Would this be due to the French tradition of splitting property among all children, as opposed the just the eldest male child? I know this created issues in Canada where farms began to become impractical.

This presumably had some impact on French cultural norms, particularly given that the very nature of the tendency meant that the farmer class remained an unusually large proportion of the population.

A slight problem with this is looking at Quebec, such problems were not an issue as they just lead to large scale emmigration. In contrast France saw relatively little emigration throughout this period. Why would they not continue to have children and then see emmigration like Germany or Britain?
A declining birth rate seems like an odd way to govern population in an era of mass migrations.

 

[bombshoo]

Couldn't tell you how much of an impact this had, but France appeared to be far more liberal than other countries, so birth control was likely more socially acceptable.

Not saying this is untrue at all, but while the cities always seemed quite liberal, I was never under the impression that the countryside ever liberalized to the same extent (at the very least, until modern times), where Traitorfish makes a good argument that a lot of the growth was lost. I suppose looking at urban birthrates versus rural birthrates might answer the question to an extent, but I don't know where to get this information.

 

[W|M]

Would this be due to the French tradition of splitting property among all children, as opposed the just the eldest male child? I know this created issues in Canada where farms began to become impractical.

There were many places other than France where there was a tradition of splitting up land between all children (e.g. in the Kievan Rus').

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think part of it was the primary economic method switching from agriculture to industry. While France was great for agriculture, they were surpassed in Industry by Germany and the UK. So those places experienced significant population growth while France stayed at a level of sustainable growth for their economy.

Or maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about. Who knows?

ETA: I wonder if warfare was a factor as well? France fought in a lot of wars (especially the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars). I wonder if a generation essentially at war limited their growth.

 

[GamezRule]

This seems to fit in.

 

[Traitorfish]

Would this be due to the French tradition of splitting property among all children, as opposed the just the eldest male child? I know this created issues in Canada where farms began to become impractical.

Yeah, that's it.

A slight problem with this is looking at Quebec, such problems were not an issue as they just lead to large scale emmigration. In contrast France saw relatively little emigration throughout this period. Why would they not continue to have children and then see emmigration like Germany or Britain?
A declining birth rate seems like an odd way to govern population in an era of mass migrations.

Well, firstly, the period I'm talking about would be the early 19th century, after the redistribution of land that accompanied the revolution, by which point the level of cultural exchange between Metropolitan and Canadian Frenchmen was limited compared to what it had once been, so there would be certain divergences there.
Secondly, I'd say that the lack of enthusiasm for emigration was probably because of the particular inheritance traditions which you mention above, which would likely lead to many farmers holding on to shrinking plots even as they sank into poverty- a grim future for any family! Given that it could not be relied upon for one son to buy out and another, it could often seem sensible to nip the question in the bud.

There were many places other than France where there was a tradition of splitting up land between all children (e.g. in the Kievan Rus').

However, France is one of the few countries where this became a popular tradition, rather than a purely aristocratic one.

This seems to fit in.

Ha, you can actually see where the Napoleonic Wars end...

 

[Dachs]

This seems to fit in.

Not really, because it's not comparative, and the whole point of the discussion is a comparative analysis of French population growth with comparable contemporary states.

 

[W|M]

Ha, you can actually see where the Napoleonic Wars end...

I can see the Franco-Prussian War much more clearly.

 

[Yui108]

Was the golden bull an acknowledgement of political factors that already existed?

 

[spryllino]

What Golden Bull?

 

[Yui108]

of 1356

 

[Dachs]

This is more a rhetorical question than anything else, but why the hell did we Americans give up Columbia for Lady Liberty, She Who Must Be Bedded on a Mattress of Corpses? As nationalistic personifications go, Columbia was pretty awesome.