What jumps out at me on this map is the mountainous topography in the eastern half of France, and down near the Pyrenees, while it is relatively flat in the north and west. No other map I've seen shows this as readily. Now look at the previous map. Did topography dictate those politics? I'm forced to look at this from a perspective of geography because that's my background. I had only one semester, perhaps two, of Western Civilization and we might have discussed Southern France for 5 minutes. What do you think? Was there some historical event that made the south irrelevant? Or was it topography?
Here's France in 1791 showing the Departments and former Provinces. The French Revolution wasn't over yet. Ariege shows up on the map, the Aude is there too. What I like is the nomenclature of "Seine Inferieure" just to the north of Department of the Seine-et-Oise which is no doubt "Superior". Not too different from today, but I would bet that someone who intimately knows French history and geography, well, like a Frenchman, could pick out lots of differences. What interesting things do you see?
These next two maps are totally correlated. Population pretty much follows industry, or perhaps industry follows population. Again, the people and goods are in the north and the swath along the Pyrenees is blank, irrelevant. You can look at the map below and see where the money and influence are, and they are not in the Ariege. The industrial and population centers generally have easy access to transportation. Paris has the Seine as an easy route to the sea. Bordeaux has an easy outlet to the sea and has always shipped lots of wine. Marseille is the French window onto the Mediterranean. Toulouse had the Canal du Midi but it must have had only regional impact. Lille and Metz puzzle me but I can only guess that population and industry there must be related to the coalfields, the Rhine and the industrial powerhouse of the Ruhr Valley of Germany. Can someone enlighten me? In any case, the striking thing to me is the lack of population to the south of Bordeaux. Another map claims it is heavily forested, the biggest patch of green in all of France, so there must be little in the way of agriculture. The topography map shows it is relatively flat. What is the story of that huge flat triangle?
These next two maps are totally correlated. Population pretty much follows industry, or perhaps industry follows population. Again, the people and goods are in the north and the swath along the Pyrenees is blank, irrelevant. You can look at the map below and see where the money and influence are, and they are not in the Ariege. The industrial and population centers generally have easy access to transportation. Paris has the Seine as an easy route to the sea. Bordeaux has an easy outlet to the sea and has always shipped lots of wine. Marseille is the French window onto the Mediterranean. Toulouse had the Canal du Midi but it must have had only regional impact. Lille and Metz puzzle me but I can only guess that population and industry there must be related to the coalfields, the Rhine and the industrial powerhouse of the Ruhr Valley of Germany. Can someone enlighten me? In any case, the striking thing to me is the lack of population to the south of Bordeaux. Another map claims it is heavily forested, the biggest patch of green in all of France, so there must be little in the way of agriculture. The topography map shows it is relatively flat. What is the story of that huge flat triangle?