Totally different New World colonisation 1500-1700

This thread is based on a statement made by my uni lecturer during my study of Euro settlement of the Americas 1500-1700, that had specific Euro powers landed in different parts of the New World than what they had, their relations with the native American tribes would've been far different due to their differing political, religious, cultural, and economic motivations. Like say WI the Spaniards, instead of colonising New Spain, had landed in present-day New England instead of the Puritans, or if the French had gone to Mexico instead of New France ? How about the English settling in Brazil instead of the Portuguese, and the latter becoming involved in Canada instead of the French ?

It would certainly be interesting, but I think many of the differences in the style of colonisation are more due to the time the events occurred than the nation carrying them out. It was said once that had the British colonised Mexico and the Spanish India, we would today see ceremonies around pyramids devoted to the feathered serpent while Delhi and Calicut would bve devoutly Catholic. However, leaving aside the issue of converting an ancient religuious civilisation with a long history of contact with the west, I am convinced that wholeasale slaughter, plunder, and enforced Christianisation says '16th century' more than it says 'Spanish'. This it might be necessary to shift the time of contact around as well as the nations involved. Mexico colonised mid-1700s-style would certainly have been interesting.

Melvin Loh said:

How about the English settling in Brazil instead of the Portuguese, and the latter becoming involved in Canada instead of the French ?

Click to expand...

The British in Canada?! Why, thats absurd!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm an ass.

Ahem

Colonia

The English were not the first in New England, Dutch and Swedes had also been there, and adding Spanish to the list will IMO not change the final outcome, unless England is significantly weakened back home.

I doubt if the Spanish would be able to convert India to Christianity. The British actually tried very hard to be missionaries in India, but basically gave most up after the big mutiny in mid 19th century. It was realised that keeping up the very active missionary level would upset the locals and compromise basic economical interests.

But as far as I understand the British and Spanish colonised in quite different ways. In short the British took the family with them, where the Spanish (men) found a new family abroad. But I guess that was also a determined by the places they went to, it was easier to find a wife in South America than in North, due to difference in population density.

But perhaps we can find a significant PoD in shortening the 30 Years War. If that war hadn’t depopulated so many areas in continental Europe would the increased population pressure have resulted in a massive exodus from continental European nations a couple of centuries before OTL?

WI loads of Germans, Scandinavians and Dutchmen start to settle in the new world from mid 17th century? I guess there is a fair chance of the new world ending up as fragmented as the old.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

True that the Spannish coming earlier made them nastier then the English were to some degree however the Spannish do have a history of conquest and conversion so you can't put it all entirely down to the time period.