Louis XVI's Colonial Primer
"Then allow me to show you the lands France desires."
I drew two lines across North Africa with black pastel.
"Hm? Isn't that the desert? The Sahara Desert, where there's nothing but sand and no people to speak of."
"Precisely. That's why I'm abandoning it."
I colored sub-Saharan West Africa blue.
"West Africa, eh. That would make connecting to the American colonies straightforward."
That was one benefit, but the real aim was cost-effectiveness. Africa was a land of plenty, yet a green hell overrun by malaria, sleeping sickness, yellow fever—every mosquito-borne plague imaginable. Hence West Africa: the coastal strip at the edge of the savanna, including Guinea and the Gambia. A key strategic hub where we could endure the diseases just enough to study them, while reaping immediate profits. When the African colonial scramble erupted later, we could use it as a gateway to sell supplies to the other empires. As the saying goes, during the gold rush, the real money was made not by the miners, but by those selling them jeans, picks, and bread.
"Of course, we won't stop there."
"It does seem rather modest."
Next, I colored in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Then the entire Arabian Peninsula, extending to the Persian Gulf.
"Those are all wastelands."
"Doesn't matter. We'll dig the Suez Canal."
"Well... History shows that every great empire conquering Egypt—from ancient times through Rome to Napoleon in the original timeline—tried meddling with Suez and burned their fingers badly..."
True enough. But I had a full plan.
"I have a scheme to complete it within ten years. No need to worry."
"I see. Not my concern, anyway. Still, if the Suez Canal opens, European ships won't bypass France en route to Asia—er, the Indian subcontinent colonies now."
"Precisely."
"Well then, good luck. Is that all? It seems woefully insufficient compared to the territories we've marked out."
For now, that was the rational view. The Arabian Peninsula and Northeast Africa were barren lands with harsh climates, no gold or iron, unfit for plantations—the worst possible colonies. Even in the modern era, Arabia was mostly wasteland outside a few coastal cities.
"Yes. This is exactly what France wants."
"France seems overwhelmingly disadvantaged..."
As Frederick II noted, the map favored France least. Britain secured its plantations and colonial markets wholesale; Prussia its Central and Eastern European hegemony. France got little beyond the West African waypoint. Of course, the Suez Canal would unlock explosive potential—but potential was just that.
"How about at least taking North Africa? The Ottoman puppets there could be swallowed right now."
Oh no, that would spell disaster.
"It's fine. If we leave other European powers their colonies, we can keep carving them up among ourselves longer, no?"
"True enough..."
Turning North Africa into colonies would flood us with refugees straight to the homeland. No verdant Dionysian hordes for me, thanks.
"I understand Prussia's position as well. France's gains seem so meager, it's unsettling. France won the War of the Hundred Days, yet shows no victor's greed..."
That must have been the issue.
"Fair enough. But rest assured, I've secured more profit than all your combined concessions."
This stemmed from the gulf between 18th- and 21st-century perspectives. In the 18th century, with low tech levels, colonial exploitation yielded real gains. But I foresaw the future. By the late 19th century, colonies became money pits.
Sure, they'd pay off initially. Take Britain's cotton industry: grow raw cotton in India, spin it into cloth at home, sell it back dearly to the colonies. Imperial firms processed colonial raw materials and recouped costs via finished goods, turning locals into quasi-slaves—laboring endlessly just to afford imperial products. Salt worked the same: force imperial salt on colonies, offload pricey unprocessed commodities. Overproducing anything at high margins was pure profit.
That was 18th-century colonialism. But it crumbled in the 19th: steel boomed, science advanced—phonographs, cars, refrigerators, ACs, TVs. Sell those luxuries to colonies? Semiconductors and smartphones? Whatever short-term gains, factor in future refugee risks and ideological meddling, and reckless expansion was a net loss. Squeeze colonies to cover deficits, and you got exploitation backlash plus endless red ink.
Hence, look ahead. I was certain my picks would pay dividends. Not managing colonies—devouring them.
My choices minimized risks: Suez, Guinea, Red Sea, Persian Gulf—geostrategic chokepoints with high future value but currently near-wastelands. Deserts prized only post-oil discovery; hubs shining only after the canal. Best of all, sparse populations meant modernization theories could actually work. Set up hub cities, define admin zones, and modernize away. No modern soul would decry "exploiting the desert"—we'd build canals, reclaim sands, ship in supplies. Who could complain about that?
For the Persian Gulf and Arabia: endure modest losses for 50 years, then cash in on oil. Treat it as pre-investment till internal combustion engines arrived. Fifty-year holds? That's why monarchy rocks—you can muzzle impatient heirs.
Plus, wasteland colonies accrued less infamy. Infamy piled easy, shed hard. Britain stuffed its sins into the Hitler trash bin, yet colonial atrocities echo today. Managing infamy was about justifications, not morals. Better forgo immediate gains than hoard grudges for later lawsuits.
Colonies inevitably bled money as industries advanced. Why rack up infamy or deficits exploiting duds? Better cherry-pick resources.
"Too little? Then we'll take the Cape of Good Hope and Madagascar too."
Still, seeming too stingy might undermine the pact's trust—time for a little theater.
"You're picking only the prime chokepoints."
Frederick II seemed convinced I overvalued geopolitics. Lord North looked like he had words but held his tongue. Naturally—Britain would face French meddling in every colonial venture henceforth. But as the big winner here, they'd stay mum.
"Does this suffice? You've claimed all the worthwhile spots."
"Unexpected. I thought France would swallow all of North Africa."
Algeria was practically homeland extension.
"As I said, hogging every North African concession draws too much scrutiny."
Future generations: I'll devour the oil, so just sit pretty. Ruin the country on my watch, and it's on you.
Agreed upon by two kings of Europe and one prime minister on November 6, 1781. This secret pact divides future hegemony and colonial shares as follows:
One: The three nations shall aid or at minimum abstain from interfering in each other's pursuit of designated territories.
Two: In colonial disputes between the three and outsiders, the three shall unconditionally defend the agreed hegemonic spheres.
Three: Even if colonial profits shift, none shall covet the others' agreed colonies.
Four: Violation of the above three clauses constitutes grounds for war.
The pact appeared stable but was perilously fragile. Stability lasted only until colonies were secured; afterward, collisions loomed endlessly. Britain would reap fortunes from Indian plantations and colonial management; France could levy tolls on British ships and sell them supplies; Prussia would absorb Central and Eastern Europe, perpetually menacing French and British homelands.
For now, though, it favored all. Thanks to France's unilateral concessions, Britain locked in India and Oceania wholesale; Prussia its European hegemony. And France—Louis XVI—gained stable, overwhelming profits eclipsing the immediate gains.