Deleted member 143920
Possible, but I was thinking of colonies outside Europe such as the Philippines, Indonesia, cuba, etc.
Deleted member 143920
Here is an example of a 'greater' British empire https://images.app.goo.gl/S3UiqzwWkixPs2cS6
If you go early you can let england start the colonial game. By 1402 Normandy is in english hands and Jean de Bethencourt decides to work for the english and he discoveres the canaries and england takes them, later the war in france goes bad england look for some prestige bonus points, knows roughy where greenland is and sends out a expedition to find more unicorn horns (narwhal tooths). A storm blows them towards Canada and they start colonizing, France see's colonizing as something the english do and would never stoop this low.
Deleted member 143920
The British empire didn't just rise and conquer colonies in a year, it took time. But if you want me to be specific then I suggest after 1600 when the empire had its first colonies.
Modern day Uruguay is definitely an option. In 1800 only 30,000 people lived in a country that is the size of England and Wales. It could easily become another New Zealand with around 5 million people today. If the Brits have Montevideo, they'll probably take Tierra Del Fuego too as another NZ south island, with maybe around 500,000 people by 2020. I tend to think all of Argentina is a bit much though.
Portions of the Midwestern United States in the War of 1812, all of Oregon, California and Alaska in the following decades. The Kingdom of Miskit which they briefly occupied OTL. Afghanistan, Tibet or more of Persian Baluchistan if the Great Game goes a little differently.
At that time one would not speak of the French crown as an English colony, whether in settlement or exploitation a society of the Middle Ages could not create colonies as Europeans would do in America and later in Africa.
And in terms of influence, there is a strong chance that the victory of the Plantagenets will provoke the opposite, a "French" and continental culture being exported to the British Isles.
On the other hand, a union of the two countries that manages to maintain itself would be a colonial player comparable to Spain in the 15th and 16th century. Moreover with France and England united they would no longer be competitors.
Absolutely agree, we could get them to colonize the moon and Mars!
Give us a date as soon as possible.
Last edited:
Add in the United States for a world where Napoleon doesn't escape from Elba and the US is crushed in the Anglo American War of 1812 - 1816. (yes I know it ended in 1814 otl with the Battle of New Orleans fought after the treaty was signed) I'm sure Mexico will provide some excuse to take the territories they lost in their war with the US.
Last edited:
SOmething like Austria/Hungary perhaps? Many minions (French nobels) would definitly fight english influences yes, but certainly aquitane and Normandy would eventual turn, flanders would claim to have never been French in the first place, brittany would say that Germany had a closer connection to france then even brittany. But you can see that england holding on to france would change the colonial story, yes?
It depends on where you stand after the union is formed. At first like OTL France and Great Britain there will be regional cultures, but then if they enter a modern era like ours with a homogenization of cultures I think France will influence the culture more than England (for economic and demographic reasons) but this alternative French culture will be much more influenced by English culture and would probably be unrecognizable. On the other hand, under no circumstances will France or England be able to "colonize" the other, during the Hundred Years War most of the "English" in Aquitaine were Gascons for example (that's why there are probably more English now in 2020 in France than during the Hundred Years War).
Without the Franco-English rivalry the union will be much more successful than the two separate OTLs. In addition the naval (England) and the continental army (France) "card" can be acquired by a single English-French monarch. On the other hand, it is quite possible that Europe will try to fight against this mastodon and a huge problem for the union is the English Channel which separates the two crowns. And I'm talking about France and England but it is not sure that they each reach their OTL border (Burgundy, Lorraine, Scotland and Ireland would not be under control yet).
Last edited:
San Andre and Providencia were British controlled for about 150 years until they were lost to Spain. Most of the population are of mixed English descent and they still speak an English creole language.
The British did actually do a couple invasions of the Rio de la Plata region during the Napoleonic Wars, and actively desired the region as a colony. Each time, despite coming with larger numbers, they defeated decisively each time.
Hawaii very easily couldve been British.
The British did actually do a couple invasions of the Rio de la Plata region during the Napoleonic Wars, and actively desired the region as a colony. Each time, despite coming with larger numbers, they defeated decisively each time.
Hawaii very easily couldve been British.
Sumatra could be one. They had a colony on the western coast IOTL but nothing came of it. The British could probably get the whole island if things go differently.
I think that colonisation of the Franco-British union will be boosted because they will have more means to launch expeditions and one rival neighbour less.
The question of the rivalry motivating colonization also exists. One of the reasons why the United Kingdom colonized Australia was so that the French would not have it themselves.
Even if there is one less rival with France in union, there are still the Spanish and Portuguese. Moreover, there could be an alternative rival that manages to grow in importance.
As far as English tolerance to other cultures is concerned, I have my doubts. You can see it in the fact that Scotland, Wales and Ireland all speak English for example. And the fact that France is seen as much harder on other cultures comes from the Revolution and the Republic. Before under the Ancien Régime there were already efforts at homogenization but they never really succeeded.
Another important detail is how the monarch leading the union is doing. If he disadvantages one of his two crowns, the one who feels left out could very well rise up and ask for foreign help. A eu as in Spain in 1640 with Portugal and Catalonia.
New Orleans and Louisiana? IIRC, NO was only founded around the late 1710's IOTL, so there's potential for a more successful ATL British America in the Caribbean gulf coast to preempt them. Spanish Florida could find itself in a tenuous position, then.
Could even be done with later PoD's until 1803 or so.
Could even be done with later PoD's until 1803 or so.
Burgundy would be the Obvious one when england absorbes france, and Anjou napels married to a danish king could also be interesting but not what the thread is abouth
A interesting one would be a papal colony under John Cabot
Wales, scotland and irish are still their own languages and people are generally proud of it. I also believe that they are faily well represented in the colonies, people often forget that it was not spain that discovered america but castile and that the true spanish colonization happend under the spanish habsburgs that included the spanish Netherlands in fact Philip the handsome and charles V where born in the Netherlands but nobody would even suggest theirs Netherlands influence in south america.
I assume no French colony could be in any way considered occitan or bretton etc so yeah the english did it better I believe
because they where insane, cruel, stupid etc regarldles they did work.
I assume a French-english block against a habsburger block here but that is fighting in Europe not colonization The Original post was abouth the english being better colonizers taking france would have been a Obvious good move.