I've found this very interesting graph in a facebook page and the population boom experienced by England for the last 300-200 years amazed me.
First, in comparison to other countries, specially France, in which this didn't happen at all. The French population only double from more or less 30 millions by the 1700s to the 60 millions nowadays. Both England adn France rule vast empires and became industrialized by the same time. What makes me think the same didn't happen to the last is that the initial French pop. was already high, then the rate of natural increase (geographic term for population growth) was saturated. France had been the larger country in population in Western Europe for centuries, for things such as the area and suitability for agriculture, etc. Do you see other possibilities for this discrepancy?
Another thing that made me think is the comparison between the countries in the British islands, in the graph, specially Ireland. Do you agree that the heavy immigration waves the Irish took part in made their population stagnate? For me it doesn't seem enough to explain it all, as the, by the time, huge birth rate could still keep the rate of natural increase high, don't you think?
>I've found this very interesting graph in a facebook page
Don't be afraid to say it was in Reddit, user.
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.
James Butler
>beginning of uncontrolled population increase coinciding perfectly with french revolution
Chase Phillips
>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
Ryan Gray
overpopulation of anglos isn't a bad thing
Dominic Edwards
It wasn't... Then I need to read about this potato famine, I didn't know it was that bad.
Sorry for my ignorance, but who is "he"?
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.
Camden Lopez
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.
James White
the french outnumbered the english 20 to 1, still took them 100 years to kick them out
Jaxson Garcia
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: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret
Joshua Diaz
Probably closer to 4:1. France didn't have 30 million people until the 19th century.
Landon Brooks
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.
Nathan Long
>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
Benjamin Parker
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.
Lucas Gonzalez
>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?
Oliver Stewart
100years was a third of France + england vs France.
Ian Rogers
Ireland was totally devastated by the famine. A million people died out of eight million, and probably two million emigrated.
Jace Long
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.
Anthony Cook
How much of this is due to people moving from Scotland, Wales, and Ireland to England?
Connor Myers
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.
I agree, and I demand an explanation! This is driving me crazy
An important question I also want to know the answer.
Lucas Carter
Fuck off racist.
Colton King
t. Lindybeige
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.
