Newfoundland & Francesca - King Hank and King Frank's excellent New World adventures, and their legacy

raharris1973

Well-known member
Our story begins in the reign of England's Henry VII, when he patronizes Italian navigator Zuan Caboto's attempt to cross the Atlantic at the northern latitudes to find the Far East. Caboto, or John Cabot's, 2nd attempt at sailing west in 1497 succeeds and lands at a New Found Land, or Terranova for those trying to be all fancy and Latin about it.

Here's a link to his voyage. 1497 voyage - John Cabot - Wikipedia

It is on Cabot's third voyage, of 1498, where history diverges from our own. In OTL, the route of that voyage is unknown, and there is doubt that John Cabot made it back alive, but also some fragmentary evidence he did.

In this world, this voyage, which was equipped with trading goods makes it back to Newfoundland, where he does a circumnavigation, and leads him to voyage further west, into the estuary of the St. Lawrence, looking for China. He ends up making landfall in the estuary, safe contact with natives, has crew members make some further reconnaissances overland and up-river, makes some trades of his stock of mostly decorative textiles for a haul of furs, plant specimens, Moose antler racks, what turns out to be pyrite (fool's gold) and a couple convinced, curious, or tricked natives, with Cabot and crew and cargo all making it safely back to Bristol.

In OTL, the minimal account Cabot gave from one voyage without any attested native in-person interaction, and no real precious metals found (just some pyrite nuggets) was enough to have Henry VII support continuing expeditions by Cabot, his son, and others like William Weston through the King's own death in 1509. In the altered circumstances, the prospect of a river to follow and a potential pathway to another shore and then Asia, all while doing some trade with Algonquins and trading for some decent value furs, encourages the King and Bristol merchants to invest even more in the first decade of the 1500s.

By 1503, the Crown and Bristol move from sponsoring seasonal fishing camps to attempting year-round multi-purpose settlements for fishing, fur-trading, Indian trade, and advance provisioning of further western exploration both on Newfoundland the island and Newfoundland the mainland, since the name is applied to the whole landmass. The mainland colony attempts are made on the banks of the new Thames river (St. Lawrence).

Of the first three English colonial attempts, none last more than a year. None of the English settlements established in North America (in OTL Canada) up until the last year of Henry VII's life and reign end up lasting 5 years. But the English keep coming, for fish, fur, adventure, missionary work. Some things are learned from the failures. And by 1509, settlements are established that last on the sites of OTL St. Johns city and Quebec city.

Some of the money in fish and furs, and exotic hoopla of Amerindians paraded around London, and the ultimate success of the colonies, and level of investment of the Bristol merchants and English churchmen all adds up to the point that upon his accession to the throne, Henry VIII is actually committed to continuing and expanding his father's exploration project, rather than, like OTL, utterly indifferent to it.

He's even willing to irritate his new bride Catherine of Aragon, and father-in-law, Ferdinand, by interloping at longitudes deeded by the Pope to Spain. He is mostly circumspect however, generally directing English colonial settlements, even royally sponsored or patented exploratory voyages, well north of what the Spanish started calling Florida in 1513 and generally north of the latitudes where Spain and the Pyrenees lay in Europe.

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the St. Lawrence Valley might not be quite as cold in the 1500s as it became in the 1600s. The local Amerindians won't be as dead either at first, as it will take a little time for certain diseases to become endemic, and the English won't be in a military position to enslave Canadian natives for hard labor for a couple generations. They should be more populous and stronger, but also more worth trading with. I don't know if 1500s Englishmen would be quite as prone to be sending over their women as at high rates as they did in the 1600s and 1700s, so there might be more English-Indian mixing. Also the first generation and a half of English settlers will be Catholic before Henry VIII splits from the Church.

English settlement won't necessarily be a mass phenomenon, but from a low base, compounding over time from the early 1500s, in North America, Anglo-Native people descended from explorers and reliant on English trade and Christianized will boom in population, and among people who are mainly native culturally and even genetically, those with some English or European admixture will have the most numerous surviving descendants. Where settlement towns and farms grow large or settled enough, there may be modest but nontrivial female migration, which sets things up for major growth in an all-'English" population in the relatively cool, low-disease environment over time.

Meanwhile -- It's not like King Francis of France will miss this entirely. In OTL's 15-teens he expressed his irritation at the arrogance of the Treaty of Tordesillas. Also in OTL 1522 he commissioned Giovanni Da Verrazzanno to do something about it and explore the Atlantic seaboard of North America. And some intrepid Frenchmen, pirates, fishermen, brazilwood rustlers, had been dropping in on the Americas occasionally for a decade or two by then.

Francis will certainly back up Verrazzanno here. Verrazzano will explore the Atlantic coast from the Cape Fear river (North Carolina) to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. See: Viaggioverrazzano.jpg (369×457) (wikimedia.org). Only in this ATL, upon Verrazzano's return, Francis will feel competitive pressure not just from the Spanish to his south (Cortez's simultaneous conquest of Mexico and Magellan, Ilocano & Pagafetta's circumnavigation) but from the English to his north.

He will re-hire Verrazzano and send other explorers to do immediate follow up voyages and make settlement attempts. Immediate aims of follow-up voyages would be up the Cape Fear river, looking behind the outer banks to see what the next land is, journeying up the hudson river, seeing what's around cape cod. He missed the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays first time, so they might wait. Based on initial familarity with coasts, the first French settlements would probably be attempted in the area of New York City, New Jersey, Long Island, Rhode Island, and the Cape Fear, Outer Banks area. There could easily be half a dozen failed settlement attempts before a couple stick. But some colonies should be sticking firmly by about 1535 or 1540 when their religious wars blow up. The colonial area would probably stick with the names V. gave them, Francesca for the landmass (Nova Gallia when being all fancy and Latin) and Nouvelle Angouleme for the Manhattan area.

The main lines of business would be fishing, fur-trading, of course people would *also* be hunting around for gold, and especially from the southern French colonies, pirating off the Spanish. The French will probably eventually figure out tobacco, including the blending of southeastern USA tobacco with Caribbean/South American tobacco to make it more marketable.

With a start in all these crucial places on the Atlantic coast from Cape Fear to Cape Cod, even if there isn't much settlement (and there would always be some, plus decent natural increase in any colonies from New Jersey north) as early as the 1520s-1540s, I think the French would be favored to preempt the whole Atlantic coast between Spanish Florida and English Nova Scotia or Maine before the Swedes or Dutch can even get started (or win independence).
 

ATP

Well-known member
Plausible and interesting.Breton probably knew about Labrador,becouse their fisherman go near that.But,they were interested only in fishing.

England catholic could go to Canada to hide from presecutions,instead of puritans.

What next? No USA as we knew it,becouse those territories would mostly be french.So,no Revolution in 1776 supported by France,no anti-French revolution supported by England,and much better world without any bigger revolutions.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Our story begins in the reign of England's Henry VII, when he patronizes Italian navigator Zuan Caboto's attempt to cross the Atlantic at the northern latitudes to find the Far East. Caboto, or John Cabot's, 2nd attempt at sailing west in 1497 succeeds and lands at a New Found Land, or Terranova for those trying to be all fancy and Latin about it.

Here's a link to his voyage. 1497 voyage - John Cabot - Wikipedia

It is on Cabot's third voyage, of 1498, where history diverges from our own. In OTL, the route of that voyage is unknown, and there is doubt that John Cabot made it back alive, but also some fragmentary evidence he did.

In this world, this voyage, which was equipped with trading goods makes it back to Newfoundland, where he does a circumnavigation, and leads him to voyage further west, into the estuary of the St. Lawrence, looking for China. He ends up making landfall in the estuary, safe contact with natives, has crew members make some further reconnaissances overland and up-river, makes some trades of his stock of mostly decorative textiles for a haul of furs, plant specimens, Moose antler racks, what turns out to be pyrite (fool's gold) and a couple convinced, curious, or tricked natives, with Cabot and crew and cargo all making it safely back to Bristol.

In OTL, the minimal account Cabot gave from one voyage without any attested native in-person interaction, and no real precious metals found (just some pyrite nuggets) was enough to have Henry VII support continuing expeditions by Cabot, his son, and others like William Weston through the King's own death in 1509. In the altered circumstances, the prospect of a river to follow and a potential pathway to another shore and then Asia, all while doing some trade with Algonquins and trading for some decent value furs, encourages the King and Bristol merchants to invest even more in the first decade of the 1500s.

By 1503, the Crown and Bristol move from sponsoring seasonal fishing camps to attempting year-round multi-purpose settlements for fishing, fur-trading, Indian trade, and advance provisioning of further western exploration both on Newfoundland the island and Newfoundland the mainland, since the name is applied to the whole landmass. The mainland colony attempts are made on the banks of the new Thames river (St. Lawrence).

Of the first three English colonial attempts, none last more than a year. None of the English settlements established in North America (in OTL Canada) up until the last year of Henry VII's life and reign end up lasting 5 years. But the English keep coming, for fish, fur, adventure, missionary work. Some things are learned from the failures. And by 1509, settlements are established that last on the sites of OTL St. Johns city and Quebec city.

Some of the money in fish and furs, and exotic hoopla of Amerindians paraded around London, and the ultimate success of the colonies, and level of investment of the Bristol merchants and English churchmen all adds up to the point that upon his accession to the throne, Henry VIII is actually committed to continuing and expanding his father's exploration project, rather than, like OTL, utterly indifferent to it.

He's even willing to irritate his new bride Catherine of Aragon, and father-in-law, Ferdinand, by interloping at longitudes deeded by the Pope to Spain. He is mostly circumspect however, generally directing English colonial settlements, even royally sponsored or patented exploratory voyages, well north of what the Spanish started calling Florida in 1513 and generally north of the latitudes where Spain and the Pyrenees lay in Europe.

Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the St. Lawrence Valley might not be quite as cold in the 1500s as it became in the 1600s. The local Amerindians won't be as dead either at first, as it will take a little time for certain diseases to become endemic, and the English won't be in a military position to enslave Canadian natives for hard labor for a couple generations. They should be more populous and stronger, but also more worth trading with. I don't know if 1500s Englishmen would be quite as prone to be sending over their women as at high rates as they did in the 1600s and 1700s, so there might be more English-Indian mixing. Also the first generation and a half of English settlers will be Catholic before Henry VIII splits from the Church.

English settlement won't necessarily be a mass phenomenon, but from a low base, compounding over time from the early 1500s, in North America, Anglo-Native people descended from explorers and reliant on English trade and Christianized will boom in population, and among people who are mainly native culturally and even genetically, those with some English or European admixture will have the most numerous surviving descendants. Where settlement towns and farms grow large or settled enough, there may be modest but nontrivial female migration, which sets things up for major growth in an all-'English" population in the relatively cool, low-disease environment over time.

Meanwhile -- It's not like King Francis of France will miss this entirely. In OTL's 15-teens he expressed his irritation at the arrogance of the Treaty of Tordesillas. Also in OTL 1522 he commissioned Giovanni Da Verrazzanno to do something about it and explore the Atlantic seaboard of North America. And some intrepid Frenchmen, pirates, fishermen, brazilwood rustlers, had been dropping in on the Americas occasionally for a decade or two by then.

Francis will certainly back up Verrazzanno here. Verrazzano will explore the Atlantic coast from the Cape Fear river (North Carolina) to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. See: Viaggioverrazzano.jpg (369×457) (wikimedia.org). Only in this ATL, upon Verrazzano's return, Francis will feel competitive pressure not just from the Spanish to his south (Cortez's simultaneous conquest of Mexico and Magellan, Ilocano & Pagafetta's circumnavigation) but from the English to his north.

He will re-hire Verrazzano and send other explorers to do immediate follow up voyages and make settlement attempts. Immediate aims of follow-up voyages would be up the Cape Fear river, looking behind the outer banks to see what the next land is, journeying up the hudson river, seeing what's around cape cod. He missed the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays first time, so they might wait. Based on initial familarity with coasts, the first French settlements would probably be attempted in the area of New York City, New Jersey, Long Island, Rhode Island, and the Cape Fear, Outer Banks area. There could easily be half a dozen failed settlement attempts before a couple stick. But some colonies should be sticking firmly by about 1535 or 1540 when their religious wars blow up. The colonial area would probably stick with the names V. gave them, Francesca for the landmass (Nova Gallia when being all fancy and Latin) and Nouvelle Angouleme for the Manhattan area.

The main lines of business would be fishing, fur-trading, of course people would *also* be hunting around for gold, and especially from the southern French colonies, pirating off the Spanish. The French will probably eventually figure out tobacco, including the blending of southeastern USA tobacco with Caribbean/South American tobacco to make it more marketable.

With a start in all these crucial places on the Atlantic coast from Cape Fear to Cape Cod, even if there isn't much settlement (and there would always be some, plus decent natural increase in any colonies from New Jersey north) as early as the 1520s-1540s, I think the French would be favored to preempt the whole Atlantic coast between Spanish Florida and English Nova Scotia or Maine before the Swedes or Dutch can even get started (or win independence).

Interesting scenario. I'm not sure that France will end up dominating the OTL US east coast as OTL England had some advantages here.
a) France was primarily committed to trade rather than settlement having a lot of land in France or desired annexations and also with the monarchy and more general leadership being concerned with success in Europe. As such settlement was limited in number and also directed somewhat. People who were unpopular with the monarchy were discouraged from migration to the new world. You could see some Catholics fleeing during the wars of religion in France but their likely to be limited by the fact their generally on top and hence have less reason to free that the frequently brutally persecuted Huguenots.

b) This is compounded by the fact that the Huguenots were mostly prominent in trading ports and played a major role in both exploration and also the early wars against the Spanish domination of the region. See this video on French operations in the New World in the 16th C for some background.

c) In comparison England, especially if it still goes Protestant as you hint at is more likely to send settlers both because their less centralized society, more interest in private trade and that assuming they get a similar level of turmoil as OTL there's likely to be a lot of political and religious migrants. Given the geography involved unless there's a major push deep into the great lakes and then possibly down the Mississippi I would expect that the English would also seek to push south along the coast and start clashing with the French for OTL New England at the very least. In fact the latter is probably the higher priority as they would be looking for lands to settle rather than trade items.

You could see the French, if they get more settlers possibly having the continent from about Virginia southwards and later up the Mississippi and the English having the lands to the north and a presence in the Great Lakes region.

This of course ignores other factors such as the Dutch assuming they still seek independence at some time.

If you want a system which basically reverses the OTL developments with the 'American' colonies having a large French settlement and Canada having a primary English one with a larger interest in trade with the local Indians you would need to change a lot in the characteristics and development of both England and France to make each more like the other.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
England catholic could go to Canada to hide from presecutions,instead of puritans.
It's not either or. It wasn't even OTL. This is just another Maryland. Henry will still want a male heir and needing divorces to seek one. The English religious rolercoaster is still on track and it's still going to result in the Puritans and the sections of the CoE that either enjoy the trappings of high church or corruption do push them to the colonies.

Interesting scenario. I'm not sure that France will end up dominating the OTL US east coast as OTL England had some advantages here.
You forgot the big one here: Protecting trade and overseas colonies requires naval strength. France can not be defended with a navy. England can. England shares a land border with Scotland, which isn't terribly threatening and if European monarchy follows OTL stops mattering when Elizabeth I dies having refused to ever marry because personal unions don't invade themselves. Not at least when both sides are real monarchies. France shares two land borders with the Hapsburgs until the Dutch revolt and then has to worry about them in Savoy a bit later. They're also next to the germanies and have to worry about the wars of religion spilling over their eastern border even after the Hapsburgs are off of it.

England, except during its own civil war, can be expected to win any colonial war with France after the development of effective cannons and sailing rigs because it is a sufficiently rich island. England will wind up controlling the eastern seaboard TTL just like it wound up controlling Quebec OTL.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
Interesting scenario. I'm not sure that France will end up dominating the OTL US east coast as OTL England had some advantages here.

....snip erudite details....

If you want a system which basically reverses the OTL developments with the 'American' colonies having a large French settlement and Canada having a primary English one with a larger interest in trade with the local Indians you would need to change a lot in the characteristics and development of both England and France to make each more like the other.

I would ask you what your contention is about what exactly France can or cannot do?

Are you saying you find it difficult to believe France could establish a leading position in Atlantic coast colonies in the 1520s-1540s, and difficult to imagine them controlling the east coast from Cape Fear to Cape Cod at around, say, the 1600 timeframe?

Or are you saying that in the long-run, say 160-200 years from the PoD, it is hard to imagine the English controlling the eastern coast of OTL USA?

One could argue for the second without arguing for the first. Big picture factors favoring particular outcomes may not play out over very short time horizons of a couple decades or a generation.


You forgot the big one here: Protecting trade and overseas colonies requires naval strength. France can not be defended with a navy. England can. England shares a land border with Scotland, which isn't terribly threatening and if European monarchy follows OTL stops mattering when Elizabeth I dies having refused to ever marry because personal unions don't invade themselves. Not at least when both sides are real monarchies. France shares two land borders with the Hapsburgs until the Dutch revolt and then has to worry about them in Savoy a bit later. They're also next to the germanies and have to worry about the wars of religion spilling over their eastern border even after the Hapsburgs are off of it.

England, except during its own civil war, can be expected to win any colonial war with France after the development of effective cannons and sailing rigs because it is a sufficiently rich island. England will wind up controlling the eastern seaboard TTL just like it wound up controlling Quebec OTL.

I would ask a similar question of you that I asked of Stevep-

Are you saying you find it difficult to believe France could establish a leading position in Atlantic coast colonies in the 1520s-1540s, and difficult to imagine them controlling the east coast from Cape Fear to Cape Cod at around, say, the 1600 timeframe?

Or are you saying that in the long-run, say 160-200 years from the PoD, it is hard to imagine the English controlling the eastern coast of OTL USA?
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
It's not either or. It wasn't even OTL. This is just another Maryland. Henry will still want a male heir and needing divorces to seek one. The English religious rolercoaster is still on track and it's still going to result in the Puritans and the sections of the CoE that either enjoy the trappings of high church or corruption do push them to the colonies.

agreed
 

stevep

Well-known member
It's not either or. It wasn't even OTL. This is just another Maryland. Henry will still want a male heir and needing divorces to seek one. The English religious rolercoaster is still on track and it's still going to result in the Puritans and the sections of the CoE that either enjoy the trappings of high church or corruption do push them to the colonies.


You forgot the big one here: Protecting trade and overseas colonies requires naval strength. France can not be defended with a navy. England can. England shares a land border with Scotland, which isn't terribly threatening and if European monarchy follows OTL stops mattering when Elizabeth I dies having refused to ever marry because personal unions don't invade themselves. Not at least when both sides are real monarchies. France shares two land borders with the Hapsburgs until the Dutch revolt and then has to worry about them in Savoy a bit later. They're also next to the germanies and have to worry about the wars of religion spilling over their eastern border even after the Hapsburgs are off of it.

England, except during its own civil war, can be expected to win any colonial war with France after the development of effective cannons and sailing rigs because it is a sufficiently rich island. England will wind up controlling the eastern seaboard TTL just like it wound up controlling Quebec OTL.

I did actually mention the problem for France but probably not explicitly enough. Agree that unless France is driven to a real effort, which given its other demands is unlikely its colonies are going to be vulnerable to English/British naval superiority - at least unless and until they get a critical mass of settlers too large to be absorbed. Which I suspect would be unlikely without massive encouragement of emigration.
 

stevep

Well-known member
I would ask you what your contention is about what exactly France can or cannot do?

Are you saying you find it difficult to believe France could establish a leading position in Atlantic coast colonies in the 1520s-1540s, and difficult to imagine them controlling the east coast from Cape Fear to Cape Cod at around, say, the 1600 timeframe?

Or are you saying that in the long-run, say 160-200 years from the PoD, it is hard to imagine the English controlling the eastern coast of OTL USA?

One could argue for the second without arguing for the first. Big picture factors favoring particular outcomes may not play out over very short time horizons of a couple decades or a generation.

Do you mean in the 2nd bit hard to imagine England NOT controlling the eastern seaboard as it sounds rather odd as I read it?

To answer your question I would say I could fairly easily see France doing the 1st, establishing bases along most of the eastern seaboard of the OTL US in the early 16th C and they could probably hold most of it for a while, especially since OTL the 1st English colonies weren't in place on the mainland until the early 17thC.

However without drastic changes to either/both nations, or possibly world history in general I suspect that English/British migration would increasingly supplant them across the northern parts of those region as they spread southwards, due to a combination of more migrants and generally greater available sea power. As such I suspect the French are likely to be displayed from a good chunk of those early settlements. They might not sweep all the way south to ~Florida as OTL and displace the French totally as they did from Canada OTL - politically at least - because the French are likely to bring more people into their colonies and since the lands are richer agriculturally local population growth would be greater than OTL French Canada.

Note there are a fair number of things that might change this. If one of Catherine of Aragon's son's live to adulthood then he won't be so desperate for a divorice and could stay Catholic. Doesn't mean that England will in the longer term but could see England hit by more bitter religious warfare, plus it would mean a stronger monarchy for longer, at least in the short term. The former would mean different political relationships with much of Europe while the latter could mean less settlers in N America and also if a dominant monarchy survives possibly more direct involvement on the continent at the expense of overseas trade and colonization.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Are you saying you find it difficult to believe France could establish a leading position in Atlantic coast colonies in the 1520s-1540s, and difficult to imagine them controlling the east coast from Cape Fear to Cape Cod at around, say, the 1600 timeframe?

Or are you saying that in the long-run, say 160-200 years from the PoD, it is hard to imagine the English controlling the eastern coast of OTL USA?

The French can probably establish a leading position in the 16th century. Keeping to the end of the 17th century is unlikely. By OTL Europe they'll lose bits in the War of the League of Augsburg and more in the War of the Spanish Succession and War of the Austrian Succession, and if the map was by the end of the Seven Years War I'd be surprised if France kept any of the eastern seaboard. If not those wars then there would be others with different causes and timings but much the same outcomes.
 

stevep

Well-known member
The French can probably establish a leading position in the 16th century. Keeping to the end of the 17th century is unlikely. By OTL Europe they'll lose bits in the War of the League of Augsburg and more in the War of the Spanish Succession and War of the Austrian Succession, and if the map was by the end of the Seven Years War I'd be surprised if France kept any of the eastern seaboard. If not those wars then there would be others with different causes and timings but much the same outcomes.

There will be a lot of conflict and also a lot of possible changes in history. I could see France keeping hold of some sections as they might have a larger settler base from possible local growth by settlers over the period but without major changes in the structure of the two powers I think the English/British would have more settlers.

It would be interesting with say the southern US being French speaking and the north and Canada being English which could have some major impacts on developments in N America and elsewhere.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
There will be a lot of conflict and also a lot of possible changes in history. I could see France keeping hold of some sections as they might have a larger settler base from possible local growth by settlers over the period but without major changes in the structure of the two powers I think the English/British would have more settlers.

It would be interesting with say the southern US being French speaking and the north and Canada being English which could have some major impacts on developments in N America and elsewhere.
I think the British ability to supply their colonial forces and native allies better than the French can is more important than the respective population bases and that the population gap between New France and New England may not be as large as the OTL gap in the opposite direction. France has pretty good agricultural land already so other than maybe getting rid of the Huguenots they may not send as many to French North America as the English did OTL, and the Huguenots are a potential fifth column for religious reasons. So are English American Catholics, but the English are better able to take advantage of the fifth column because they have a navy and can ship armaments and soldiers around. Armies are also less capital intensive than navies. For a given military budget a navy absorbs fewer young men than an army because of all the ships that must be built. More of the potential settler demographic is thus absorbed by the military in France than in England.

I expect the maps after the end of the Seven Years War or however long it lasts TTL to look very familiar except that there are French names on the eastern seaboard instead of in OTL Quebec. After that where and how and perhaps even if the American Revolution breaks out will differ and that will cause interesting divergence again, but whether it breaks out among the English or among the people upset that London won't let them cross the Appalachians, it won't be a rebellion against France but against England.
 

stevep

Well-known member
I think the British ability to supply their colonial forces and native allies better than the French can is more important than the respective population bases and that the population gap between New France and New England may not be as large as the OTL gap in the opposite direction. France has pretty good agricultural land already so other than maybe getting rid of the Huguenots they may not send as many to French North America as the English did OTL, and the Huguenots are a potential fifth column for religious reasons. So are English American Catholics, but the English are better able to take advantage of the fifth column because they have a navy and can ship armaments and soldiers around. Armies are also less capital intensive than navies. For a given military budget a navy absorbs fewer young men than an army because of all the ships that must be built. More of the potential settler demographic is thus absorbed by the military in France than in England.

I expect the maps after the end of the Seven Years War or however long it lasts TTL to look very familiar except that there are French names on the eastern seaboard instead of in OTL Quebec. After that where and how and perhaps even if the American Revolution breaks out will differ and that will cause interesting divergence again, but whether it breaks out among the English or among the people upset that London won't let them cross the Appalachians, it won't be a rebellion against France but against England.

I would agree but to secure room for that greater settler population England would have to start pushing south into at least the New England/New York region and probably somewhere south of that. - Assuming social and historical developments in the respective homelands similar to OTL but just the reversed starting positions.

I could see local growth meaning more substantial French populations, which could be boosted by others being forced south by the English advance and possibly a belated French attempt to encouraged more settlers to counter the English advantage. As such I could see them holding at least a good chunk of the south longer than the OTL holding of Canada. Which would change the dynamics of developments in the region.

It would need a greatly different French government to allow let alone encourage Huguenots settlement in part because they wouldn't be trusted. Possibly if Henri IV had lived longer something like that might have been allowed although you do have the risk that if France goes back to brutal suppression as it did under Louis XIV then it would occur in the colonies as well as France itself. Which could mean a revolt by the Huguenots in the colonies that could attract English/British support.

Of course the other thing we're ignoring is other powers such as the Dutch and even the Swedes who were briefly players in the region. Its possibly that if they still obtain footholds then that would complicate matters further.
 

raharris1973

Well-known member
I would agree but to secure room for that greater settler population England would have to start pushing south into at least the New England/New York region and probably somewhere south of that.

You're on here about an English need and inevitability to push south into New England and New York and the east coast generally. But if the British are settling up in Canada upriver via the St. Lawrence, what if the path of lesser resistance isn't French colonies in OTL New England and York, but down the York/Ontario peninsula, Michigan, and into Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. There are no French opponents there, just natives.The soil is better there for farming - less rocky, and the terrain is flatter, more open - to mountain ranges to cross. Also, if the French are the first arrivers/movers at Manhattan at the head of the Hudson, they'll likely be allied to the Iroqouis, strongest in the mountainous areas of upstate New York. The Iroquois are likely to be harder and take longer for the English to crack than the tribes further in the interior like the Huron, Algonquian speakers or others.

so other than maybe getting rid of the Huguenots
It would need a greatly different French government to allow let alone encourage Huguenots settlement

Although you're both disagreeing with each other, you're both tunneling in on the AH fixation on French settler colonialism standing or falling merely on the backs of Huguenot Frenchmen, something under 5% of the total French population. Catholics can do fine on their own in terms of settling culturally continuous areas (Quebec anyone, Guadalupe, Martinique, Guiana, New Caledonia) or culturally continuous influence areas (Louisiana proper, Haiti)
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Although you're both disagreeing with each other, you're both tunneling in on the AH fixation on French settler colonialism standing or falling merely on the backs of Huguenot Frenchmen, something under 5% of the total French population. Catholics can do fine on their own in terms of settling culturally continuous areas (Quebec anyone, Guadalupe, Martinique, Guiana, New Caledonia) or culturally continuous influence areas (Louisiana proper, Haiti)
They can, but Metropolitan France doesn't want to get rid of them. They're only pulled by the lure of profit not also pushed by religious persecution or running out of good farmland. The Black Death emptied a lot of farms, but in England they were mostly on what is marginal land after the end of the Medieval Warm Period while France has a better climate for agriculture.
 

stevep

Well-known member
You're on here about an English need and inevitability to push south into New England and New York and the east coast generally. But if the British are settling up in Canada upriver via the St. Lawrence, what if the path of lesser resistance isn't French colonies in OTL New England and York, but down the York/Ontario peninsula, Michigan, and into Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. There are no French opponents there, just natives.The soil is better there for farming - less rocky, and the terrain is flatter, more open - to mountain ranges to cross. Also, if the French are the first arrivers/movers at Manhattan at the head of the Hudson, they'll likely be allied to the Iroqouis, strongest in the mountainous areas of upstate New York. The Iroquois are likely to be harder and take longer for the English to crack than the tribes further in the interior like the Huron, Algonquian speakers or others.

Yes but being interior the climate is worse in winter especially and connections to Europe are markedly worse. Even if you get full control of the St Lawrence - which would also mean clashing with the Iroquois I believe - its frozen in winter so your logistics suck. If you also get secure access of the Mississippi then that's better but its still a long distance and vulnerable to flooding and the like as well as a bottleneck at New Orleans and its exits. Even worse if the French build up a strong population base in the coastal colonies and start spreading inland, especially near the Gulf coastline. Much easier and more likely that they spread southwards down the coast. How far would depend on the balance of power both in the colonies, at sea and across Europe over a long period of time.


Although you're both disagreeing with each other, you're both tunneling in on the AH fixation on French settler colonialism standing or falling merely on the backs of Huguenot Frenchmen, something under 5% of the total French population. Catholics can do fine on their own in terms of settling culturally continuous areas (Quebec anyone, Guadalupe, Martinique, Guiana, New Caledonia) or culturally continuous influence areas (Louisiana proper, Haiti)

To clarify I wasn't assuming solely or even mainly Huguenot settlement. I was stating why I didn't think they would make a significant - if any - contribution.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top