How did France fuck up so bad and lose everything?

>>2784406
Britain was better at war
Britian had a larger exporting population
Britain was Anglican so didn't have to worry about converting people
Britain was fine with killing tribes
Britain could focus on colonisation rather than some Frankish borders

>>2784406
Either sell it to the US or see the US take it by force just like the original 13 colonies.

>>2784424
France would have decimated America in a war

>>2784428
Any European power would have destroyed America if they'd fought a war straight up in the early days of the nation. But none of them had the time or resources to devote to crushing them.

>>2784428
France couldn't even beat Mexico. Projecting power over thousands of miles of ocean is extremely difficult, especially in the 19th century and earlier. The Royal Navy can also pretty much veto any attempt by the French to cross the Atlantic. And as it so happens, the Brits were rather anti-French at the time.

File: JUST.jpg (32KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x600px

>Build 150 forts
>Lose almost everything and then sell the rest
JUST

>>2784470
This. The french just sucked at war, honestly I don't understand the point of this thread.

>>2784406
Those maps are seriously just meme maps. They were based on claims and not really held in any serious way by the powers drafting them. Yes, there was a French presence in North America but it was largely based around Louisiana and the trapper communities in Canada (later Quebec).

>>2784416
>Britain had a larger exporting population
???

>>2784428
Keep in mind that Britain also lost to the US, despite having:

>the world's largest navy, full of experienced sailors and admirals
>a significant portion of the American populace as loyalists willing to support them with supplies, lodging, and manpower
>an already sizable military presence in the US

>>2784406
That entire region was populated by like 10000 people.

It was a paper empire which existed in the minds of frenchmen, not in reality.

>>2786434
Because Britain was also at war with 3 other empires???

>>2786434
The British really lost to the French desu senpai. (Ironically they started getting the upper hand and were winning again after Saratoga but peace had already been signed)

in the timeframe of the map most people landed on the east coast so the west was populated by some native tribes and bisons. Nothing to rule over or to profit from and the most important factor in those times was manpower (either for work of for war).
Everything that's blue on this map has no manpower to work that land or to secure it. So it's just useless for that time period.

>>2784470
>France couldn't even beat Mexico
But the french forces still captured Mexico city and created the second mexican empire. The defeat of the empire happened after the french forces left, due to the incoming war with Prussia, and the fact the US threatened France about the issue.

File: sad-pepe-640x480.jpg (29KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x480px

>>2784406
This picture makes me sad, like I imagine what might could have been, like for example US of A, this time just with good taste and real culture. Life on earth would be so different.

Because France had insane amounts of unsustainable debt and sold Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson.

>>2787009
>not living in the alternate ti eline where france colonized brazil and both french brazil and usa become superpowers in neck to neck competition like france and britain but on a larger scale

France was rulled by the most incompetent retards on earth.Any country with that huge population would have done so much better but the frogs and their incompetence achieved the impossible,make it a mediocre piece of shit.

>>2786413
The French wanted to stay in France, and large sum of the French who settled in the new world moved back to France.

Meanwhile the British couldn't wait to get away from their shithole

>>2784416
>Britain was better at war
lmao, stopped reading there

>>2784470
>France couldn't even beat Mexico.

They literally did, multiple times.

Because French people had zero interest in some useless savage land on the other side of the planet when there were wars to be fought and land to be conquered in Europe.

Over extension and lack of coreing.

>>2786389
Is conquering Europe and a quarter of the globe sucking at war?

>>2787369
t. /gsg/ pro

>A few acres of snow

France simply didn't give a fuck.

>>2787381
if you cant hold it

>>2784416
>Britain was better at war
Hiding on your island is not being better

>Britian had a larger exporting population
Because Britain was shit as always

>Britain was Anglican so didn't have to worry about converting people
Tell that to the African Anglicans

>Britain was fine with killing tribes
LMAO

Anglo-Americans are mixed as fuck, you killing tribe is a myth just like the Saxons killing the Celts

>Britain could focus on colonisation rather than some Frankish borders
You mean French

>>2786434
You're ignoring that the French Spanish and Dutch got involved in the war.

>>2787430
>this level of sheer butthurt

File: 1491868296116.jpg (193KB, 940x677px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 940x677px

>>2787430
>Hiding on your island is not being better
>tfw napoleon dreamed that he would be a prisoner on that island when he surrendered to Britain for the SECOND time.
>Hiding on your island
You mean that land-mass that everyone is aware of that is literally a swimmable distance from the continent?
>Hiding on your island


>Brits
>Hiding

Outside of New Orleans and Quebec, they held the land on a map only.

Jefferson did nothing wrong.

>dude it's just snow, surely Guadaloupe is more valuable
JUST

>>2784406
And Spain fought on French side and got their land.

>>2787768
Brits suck at war. Even in their theoreticak peak they were useless against other European powers

>>2787397
But then it isn't war is it?

>>2786409
this. Unless you actually have the power to exercise control and influence over the people living there you are just larping.

>>2788176
>Unless you actually have the power to exercise control and influence over the people living there you are just larping.

Not entirely. France "owning" that land was minute like an agreement with other European powers so they would have exclusive rights to it in the future, not that so much that they were actually there gathering taxes from the natives or whatever. It's not the same thing as real colonies, but it's not nothing either.

>>2784406
Britain invested more heavily in the navy, which is kinda important when trying to control overseas colonies

>>2784406
Too many forts, not enough people.

>>2788052
It's almost as if they were a naval power?

>>2787040
this has potential.
I'm gonna try to recreate this in an EU4 run now.

I always try to colonize everything at once, and end up with nothing but token colonies everywhere.

>>2786413
The british had a mass population boom due to adopting new farming techniques earlier, to facilitate this they went to the new world with their new land

>>2786461
>nothing to profit
>bufallo hide isnt valuable
>furs arent valuable
>>2787430
>Hiding on your island is not being better
For strategy it is
>Because Britain was shit as always
Population boom actually because the royal society broguth science to the semi washed masses
>Anglo-Americans are mixed as fuck, you killing tribe is a myth just like the Saxons killing the Celts
My point was moreso what toleration the french gave to native tribes as they didnt have the larger population to form militias there
>You mean French
they were part of the frankish empire but not of france so france went to war to restore them was my point
>Tell that to the African Anglicans
Yes colonisation of Africa was very deep in 1750, thats why the Scramble for Africa was only 110 years later

File: Hiding on their island (North America edition).jpg (86KB, 317x717px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 317x717px

>>2787430
>How did France lose North America
>Britain was better at war
>Hiding on your island is not being better

E X P L A I N
X
P
L
A
I
N

>>2788330
>token colonies
>not forming Austrian Brazil
why can only europe join the HRE
I mean you have land connections if you go through alaska

>>2784406
Britain kicked their ass on the colonial game constantly. It was hilarious.

Nappy sold the rest of the NA land to America to fund his Euroconquest plans.

>>2784406
French have no morale

>>2784458
this

File: Anglo btfo :^).jpg (362KB, 754x1931px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 754x1931px

It's simple, France didn't really cared about french colonies in America.

They were seeing Nouvelle-France as an colony to export wood, fur, steels, ect to France
Production of manufactured items was prohibited and everything had to be bought from France.
Nouvelle-France had an extensive territory but it was for fur trade and exploration for natural resources.

France didn't saw the advantage to keep a huge army here because they wanted to keep let's say " military resources" (canons, rifles, experienced commanders) for the old continent.

Our ancestors (I am a Québécois) were mostly poorfag farmers, happy merchants and soldiers.

Laughing at the *nglo that had trouble to conquer less than 90 000 illiterates coureurs des bois with their colonoes of 1 million heretics. :^)

>10 000 frenchmen vs 45 000 englismen
It's not because french don't know how to fight. Everyone is a memefag.

Look I can meme too.

>>2787768
Do you understand how hard it is to launch an amphibious operation against an entire island nation? Especially at this point in time? Even Hitler couldn't put Operation Sea Lion into place, though he also was unable to achieve air superiority in the Battle of Britain first.