13 colonies become four nations.

One Quible about the map though...the Rockies would probably keep the British from getting that far south, or the French that far East. The same when it comes to the Sierra Nevada. I see the Region in between those as an upper Mexico if possible.
 

Hapsburg

Banned
Othniel said:
Under the Brits.

shouldn't "new quebec" just be called "west quebec", seen by quebecians as a continuation as their once-proud Nation of Quebec, the same way the Byzantines called themselves "romans" and thier empire the "east roman empire".
 
Becuase they left southwest for one, and it is a reincarnation of their Quebec. Heck why not just call it Quebec, because the Qubecious would do something like that...plus I see them as flaking under French control.
 

Hapsburg

Banned
eventually the Brits will take Quebec/New Quebec/West Quebec/Kwebeck and control all of canada. or else they hold out under a new and charasmatic ruler. napoleon-ish. not nappy, but a quebec version with an afro.

just jokin' 'bout that 'fro...
 
I like West Quebec so lets go with that. Yet I don't think that Louisiana is going to roll over while fellow Frenchmen are under attack. The Republic of West Quebec would be allied to Louisianna and under a series of successful and unconclusive battles (like that between the U.S. and British Canada) The French Alliance would be victorious. Afterwards (as mentioned before) with the industry of West Quebec merged with the agrarian, trade and oil of Louisianna the French republics would be a formidable force.

And to Othniel - my presumption was that the geography of North America didn't stop American and Spanish troops and migrants so it shouldn't stop the Europeans. The British would want as much Pacific coastline as possible.
 
My presumetion was that they may have people up there....and if they devolp the land better they'd surely defend it. Quite easily too.
 
How about the Brits stopped at the Sierras and at the Colorado? The Russians are stopped at Sacramento. This gives the Europeans an ability to purchase more of Mexico later. See map.

No USA.PNG
 
Why did Sweden bother to claim only a chunk of Danish Greenland and Iceland? Were they bored or something? :confused:
 
If there has to be a Quebec Occidental, then it should be limited to the lands of OTL Wisconsin. The lands of OTL Minnesota are part of the land that the US received from Great Britain at the end of the War of Independence. They, the US Government, is not going to allow any other people, not even a group of expatriot Frenchmen, set up there own country.
 
Damn those Dairy States

Othniel said:
Don't you mean the over way around? Minnesota is Louisanna Purchase Territory.

I just figured out where the problem is, besides mixing up Wisconsin and Minnesota. OTL Minnesota and Wisconsin were formed from the Minnesota Territory. The Minnesota Territory is east of the Mississppi, there for part of the territory ceded by Britain to the US at the Treaty of Paris. The southern and western portions of OTL Minnesota are part of the Louisiana Purchase. The original western border of the US was the Mississippi to its headwaters and to the Lake of the Woods.

Just cut the cheese a little differently. So to speak.

Maybe the Minnesota Territory is admitted to the Union. If there has to be a New Quebec, make it on the west bank, carved out of Louisiana. Really, of the three powers in the region, Louisiana has the least capability of holding on to any territory.
 
Top