Population boom in England

>>2647511
>I've found this very interesting graph in a facebook page

Don't be afraid to say it was in Reddit, anon.

About the Ireland question, I would say that even if birth rates were high, the impact of famine was much more bigger; thousands of Irish starved or immigrated, and there wasn't enough babies to replace them.

File: 1445988249383.jpg (31KB, 300x314px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x314px

>beginning of uncontrolled population increase coinciding perfectly with french revolution

>england a nation of 2 million people went head to head with france, a nation of 30 million, for 100 years

the fact england won a single battle, let alone the fact the entire was was fought in france must be humiliating for the French

>>2647655
overpopulation of anglos isn't a bad thing

>>2647624
It wasn't... Then I need to read about this potato famine, I didn't know it was that bad.

>>2647655
Sorry for my ignorance, but who is "he"?

>>2647666
The populations became on pair by the end of the 19th century. And the center of the British power was in the sea, which doesn't require much cannon fodder. Then, given the success of the French Empire, I don't think so.

>>2647666
Many parts of French territory, from Calais to Guianne were loyal to the English Crown, btw. That the French Crown won the war while outnumbered and totally disorganized would make me proud if I were French.

>>2647741
the french outnumbered the english 20 to 1, still took them 100 years to kick them out

File: 97a8a8e380dda0fe7ef99d6a59fd4d09.png (2MB, 2000x2275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x2275px

>>2647666
English power was much more centralised. France, until roughly the time of the Burgundian inheritance, was really a crownland with plenty of vassal states - these had autonomy similar to pre-Henry VIII Wales. Pic related.

This meant that it was constantly having internal political troubles due to the ambitions of countless lords and dukes. Furthermore England was happier to use peasant folk in battles, ie archers and longbowmen which would make up to 4/5ths of an army like that at Agincort, if I recall correctly. France on the other hand employed nobles and their sons as knights in shining armour more, meaning more catastrophic casualties.
See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret

>>2647750
Probably closer to 4:1. France didn't have 30 million people until the 19th century.

>>2647511
The English are basically rabbits, they have no self-control, no self-discipline, they exist only to breed. They are vermin, rodents, animals, a plague upon this world.

>>2647666
>he calls feudal kingdoms existing in the 14th and 15th century """nations""", and ignores the distribution of political allegiances and the relative structures of the two state

>>2647511
France started undergoing the demographic transition shortly before the revolution, there is a graph somewhere about how birth rates started to fall. Why this happened; generally this gets ascribed to French society becoming more secularized and information about measures for fertility control spreading through the population.

>>2648380
>becoming more secularized and information about measures for fertility control spreading through the population.

Or the results of a disastrous 7 years war bankrupting the monarchy and 2 failed harvests?

>>2647666
100years was a third of France + england vs France.

>>2647511
Ireland was totally devastated by the famine. A million people died out of eight million, and probably two million emigrated.

>>2648409
Nope
If bankruptcy and agricultural problems were a reason for birth rates to collapse, a lot of African states would have below replacement rates. Obviously, these nations, the poorest ones, are conversely the ones with the fastest growth rate.
The bankruptcy of the monarchy is mostly irrelevant to the common person, and harvest failures are a temporary event, not the reason for the start of a centuries long deviation from the established demographic transition pattern.

How much of this is due to people moving from Scotland, Wales, and Ireland to England?

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_France_population_1831.png (5KB, 447x260px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 447x260px

>>2648380
I couldn't find any better graph on French Demography for a large span of time, but please see this one I got. For me the stagnation in the 19th century is simply bizarre in comparison to what happened to England. I simply cannot explain that and I don't think things this simple explain that too. England should have become saturated and stop growing vertiginously, but it didn't happen I really don't know why.

>>2648490
I agree, and I demand an explanation! This is driving me crazy

>>2648504
An important question I also want to know the answer.

>>2648359
Fuck off racist.

>>2648601
t. Lindybeige

>>2648562
France is the exception, the English having massive population growth is pretty normal for an industrializing society, although the English had the largest demographic boom for whatever reason.